I was challenged, I provided proof

A short time ago I was told there was NO WAY the Trapshooting Hall of Fame building was GIVEN to the State Of Illinois.

This guy told me he wouldn't believe me UNTIL I proved it.

He told me I was making this up.

For those who may not know, here was the proof I printed out to give to the fellow.

He believes me now.

Specifically see 38. (c)

 

I don’t understand the uproar over ATA donating the HOF to the State of IL.

As a non profit, the ATA cannot sell or donate it’s property to any entity that is not another non profit or government.

They built the thing on State of Illinois property. What else can they do with it? Illinois is broke and no business for profit can buy it. ATA will use the building as long as the lease runs out and write off the cost of building it against what taxes they do pay. Would there be such an uproar over this if it was the State of Ohio? This is not an unusual situation when it comes to non profits and government.

 

That happens in almost every lease when you build on the landlords property. Ever drive by a mall or other location with a freestanding Mcd's, Burger King, DD etc. located in the parking lot? Guess who owns the building when the lease terminates, or is cancelled?

The fact that this type of arrangement is common does not mean it was a good idea for THOF though. Has to have long-term viability to work out.

In reply to above post, there is no prohibition on a nonprofit selling assets to a for-profit business. Proceeds might be taxable, but not prohibited. The prohibition is on many charities, but it applies to liquidation of the charity, not selling assets.

 

Yes, a non profit can sell to a business for profit, I was not being clear, but like you say, taxes will be hire but a non profit cannot make a habit of it or it will risk keeping it’s non profit status. My point is who is the ATA going to sell the building to when it is located on a shooting complex, out in the middle of nowhere as people like to point out, on government property?

 

That's correct, slim chance of selling a building on leased land, even if its allowed under the lease. The landlord is going to take title to the building and improvements in the end.

 

If it was such a good idea they would not have hid it along with the Pull2012 stuff. Bat please name some of those non-profit entities that have built $2.25 million buildings for a government entity on land they can never own when there were other and better options available.

And did those non-profits hide the fact from the members? If not why?

That must be a long list.

There are other reasons to build the land there. Remember an EC member had property to sell the ATA nearby. Not that motives count.

 

Who hid it and why? Do you have evidence of a conspiracy to hide it?

What other land and if it had been bought from an EC member, what kind of conspiracy with that transaction would you all be talking about now?

Why is this important 10 years plus, later? There some junior shooters who were not born when Sparta was opened, you think they care about now or 20 years from now when we are in our graves? Isn’t time to move on? If not, what remedy do you seek and why?

 

Butter - I said that it is a common occurrence where someone builds on a landlords property and that the landlord ends up owning the improvements. Yes, even non-profits do it, I will guess that some posters here know of gun clubs on government land, or military bases, where the club built the facilities. Ever see a university or local rowing club facility located on government park land? The government doesn't pay for those buildings (yes, maybe in part with grants) but the clubs overall spend the money and build the building, on land they will never own, and the government will own the building on termination. There is nothing wrong with that, it makes sense in most of these situations where it is akin to a long term lease.

In THOF situation, I'm not sure it was such a great idea simply because I'm not sure of the long-term viability of the location. If the lease is cancelled early, the transaction could be a large loss, and yes that happens quite often in the business world also.

 

If I read the original post correctly, a fellow shooter did not believe that Trapshooting Hall of Fame & Museum was constructed for the State of Illinois with the use of member donations and asked for proof which was provided.

Many people today still are unaware that the building is not owned by the THOF, Inc. Thankfully, this forum had been an educational library and provided accurate information to many.

None of the information put out by the Trustees of the THOF advised potential donors of this fact and that was dishonest. Those who were provided with a copy of the lease were advised that it was a confidential document, not to be shown or distributed to others.

First, the ATA did not donate the building to the State of Illinois. The Trapshooting Hall of Fame is its own entity and while the organization has been heavily influenced by the ATA, it has its own Board of Trustees who make the decisions. It is they who decided to keep the ownership quiet, or they were not informed of this important detail by the member who penned the agreement.

Secondly, to the point that "they (incorrectly referring to the ATA and not the THOF) built the thing on State property, what else can they do with it?" Well, that's a great point and deserves a great answer.

The ATA thought of this early on during preliminary negotiations with Illinois representatives. The question was asked "if it would be possible for the Trapshooting Hall of Fame, Inc., to purchase their property in fee simple from the Public/Private consortium" and the Executive Committee was assured "that a fee simple purchase option would be made available to the Trapshooting Hall of Fame, Inc., and also to the ATA should they desire to move their corporate headquarters (including administrative functions) to the Sparta World Shooting Complex".

It was certainly clear to both the ATA, THOF and the State of Illinois, that both the ATA and THOF might exercise the the offer to purchase property on site. Neither did. And, neither took advantage of the offer of 12 -15 acres of land set aside at the WSRC, whereas both associations would be given a small portion of property "at no charge" and "they will own this property."

No doubt, most have never heard of this but its well documented.

Lastly, as much time has passed and we have "moved on," when an important subject is occasionally broached, information is offered in these discussions to help educate those who are unaware of the facts. Believe it or not . . . . some ATA members and THOF supporters do have an interest in learning about our past. If they were not . . . . 'Ol HistoryBuff would be out of business.

HB

 

Bat,

I appreciate the fairness of your above comment.

 

HB, thanks for clarifying the ATA / THOF organizations as two Separate Entities. I was about to before I read your comments. MOST people think the THOF is indeed owned by the ATA, not true as you pointed out.

QUOTE FROM ABOVE:
It was certainly clear to both the ATA, THOF and the State of Illinois, that both the ATA and THOF might exercise the the offer to purchase property on site. Neither did. And, neither took advantage of the offer of 12 -15 acres of land set aside at the WSRC, whereas both associations would be given a small portion of property "at no charge" and "they will own this property."

SoOOO, IF it's such a great, fantastic idea to build buildings on the State owned property, why did the ATA purchase their office OFF SITE ???

Oh I forgot, PULL SOMETHING, SOMEBODY, had some great, fantastic property to sell to the ATA for a great price.

The ATA minutes have never actually been corrected to the proper name of that LLC, so it's anybody's guess who the LLC was according to THEIR records.

Just saying, as the PULL question was once again brought up. That particular "Problem" will always sit bad in my craw.

I just hope this history doesn't repeat itself again someday.

 

This is where HB and I disagree a bit. The HOF Committee is "owned" by the ATA. The ATA is the Puppetmaster. They might not own the puppet but they own the strings. The HOF Committee is ex ATA EC etc. Not always but most often. The more ethical of the group (imho) has been those that were not ex EC. You get there voting the ATA way. You leave if you don't.

The paper that separates the two entities is razor thin. But, there is a paper.

You wont find those in the know on the EC mentioning who would own the building in the ATA minutes.

 

I thought that the State of Illinois owns the HOF building should the ATA (or Trapshooting Hall of Fame more likely) move out. Not now. Am I wrong about that?

N1H1

 

I expected that statement from Tshot. Blindsided me there.

 

So there can be no confusion on who owns the Trapshooting Hall of Fame, Inc. museum and offices, read the lease:

​

 

OK, I see that now. I misunderstood the terms. Thanks,

N1H1

 

My response was not directed to you N1H1. I would have assumed that you were aware early on that the Trapshooting Hall of Fame, Inc. was using donations to constructing a $2+ million dollar museum for the State of Illinois.

I posted the relevant section of the agreement (obtained by a FOIA request) so all who are interested (believers and nay sayers) could see it for themselves.

The fact that so many people today are shocked to learn the THOF does not own the building, serves as verification this significant detail was not clearly communicated - if communicated to potential donors at all.

HB

 

OK....I'll bite. I would like to know when N1H1 knew the HOF was going to be owned by the State of Illinois.

 

I don't know when N1H1 knew or even if N1H1 knew it at all.

I assumed N1H1 likely had first hand knowledge due to the many years of support and service to both the ATA and THOF organizations. N1H1 has much time invested in leadership roles and I would be very surprised if information regarding ownership of the museum was withheld from someone with such close association. And if that was the case, I would also assume that it would be highly annoying. I know it would be for me.

Thank you for your service N1H1, even though there have been times we've held opposing views.

HB

 

Thanks, HistoryBuff.

I hope you have visited the Trapshooting Hall of Fame building at Sparta. It is a beautiful display of the history of ATA shooting that I'm sure you would admire. Especially the library which is accessible and very complete. I spend a lot of time there every August, mostly looking though the old issues of Amarican Rifleman in which I find countless professional technical articles that were the backbone of the old magazine and but are now all but gone, replaced by so-call gun tests which find every new offering better than the last, no different in purpose from Shotgun Sports, Guns and Ammo and that sort of barely reworded advertising.

The building is light, airy, welcoming and well attended by shooters at the Grand American. Bit-by-bit the entire photo collection of Marvin Christiansen, the Grand's past official photographer, is being organized and attendees of the Vandalia Grand would surely be taken back in their minds to treasured memories.

Since I expect the Trapshooting Hall of Fame to be there forever, I care not a whit who owns the building as long as its contents remain the property of the Hall, which the lease agreement guarantees.

N1H1

 

Translation.....So N1H1 is not going to admit when he knew or how long he hid the facts. I have to guess he could have been complicit in hiding the fact a gun hate state would own the HOF. It doesn't surprise me if that is the case.

The surprise is that he ducked the question. Got graph?

 

Unfortunately history shows Vandalia was to be the "Forever Home" also.

Until someone else decided that their Leased property on which the fields stood had a better use.

I sincerely hope and pray that history does NOT repeat itself here.

AND, thank You HB for once again clarifying the ownership details.

 

As I've posted before, when you build improvements on someone else's land, you are effectively giving them the improvement. You are paying for the building instead of the lessor building the building and leasing it to you.

Usually, the improvements you make revert to the lessor upon lease expiration, or the lease termination if earlier. This lease appears to be different than the usual situation in this respect, but HB's post does not show the actual language covering the details of the matter, just the introductory "whereas" summary. I would guess the details don't change anything from the summary shown above though. Could be IL has a statute that forces immediate conveyance instead of conveyance at lease end. Doesn't really matter, all is the same in the end.

 

Which is why I made my statement, I am surprised at the uproar. When you do business with government at any level, you are expected to provide goods and services for free or at below costs and the emphasis will always be on “free”. The ATA cannot take the building with them if they leave Sparta. Selling the building to another party is not a free and clear choice as the State reserves the right to squash any deal made and State is not going to pay for something they don’t have to pay for, want or need. Remember Illinois is broke. This is the only foreseeable outcome once the decision was made to have the HOF on the State property. Real estate law 101.

 

A lot of items that were on loan to the HOF were removed by the donors, One was Hugh McKinley, he told me he removed his items, I am guessing he did it.

He was so Aggravated that it was even considered building it at Sparta.

I was told that some donated items were even sold, Is that TRUE?

GB............................DLS

 

Doc,

I will pass the answer to your questions off to History Buff,as he is much more knowledgeable on this subject (factual knowledge) than I am privy to.

If I don't have facts, I don't answer.

 

DLS,

I will do my best to answer your questions to the best of my limited knowledge.

I too had heard, some years back, that the late ATA General Manager and THOF Inductee Hugh McKinley's request for the return of his items was granted. I have no knowledge as to his reasons for requesting their return.

Items are placed with a museum, either by loan or donation. All museums prefer donations absent of restriction. Many museums will not purchase or appraise items. Some will not accept loaned items.

The THOF provides donors with a few methods of making donations. It is usual for donors to make what is known as an "outright gift" which allows the organization the ability to what they wish with the item(s).

I believe the THOF still permits donors to make "temporary loans" and "permanent loans" allowing owners to place conditions on them. The organization will decide if they will accept the items with the conditions or not.

It is true that some items at the THOF are occasionally deaccessioned (sold, traded and/or gifted). I recall hearing that the THOF sold a glass ball trap from the 1870s after acquiring a second one in better shape.

Every once in a while, a rumor is started that someone's donated item was sold. This very thing happened to the great shooter George Snellenberger who heard, several years ago, that his gun was sold. Of course he was quickly assured by the THOF that his Winchester Model 12 was still safely locked in their safe.

Sometimes the decision is made by the THOF to gift a donated item to a State HOF. An "A Class" trophy or shooting vest of a notable shooter might not be something to display at the museum but would be an attraction if displayed at the shooter's State HOF.

Everyone should understand that some donated items just are not determined significant enough for display and are boxed up and stored. All museums do this. There is only so much area for displays and only the most interesting items are usually out for show.

Remember:

Usually:

Loans can be for a specified period or an unspecified period. The THOF offered a permanent loan which I've never understood. Who owns the item after the donor dies? Does the deceased owner have descendants? How do you find them, etc.?

Donations are considered gifts, that deed ownership to the museum. Some museums permit donors to place conditions on their items. Another decision that seems nonsensical. A deeded item is owned by the museum period. If you desire to place conditions on your item - loan it with your stipulations.

Think about the future of your historical item thoroughly before donating it to any organization. If you want to donate an item to an organization, know their policies and realize that you should be comfortable in making your decision.

Either have your wishes for your loaned item expressed on the paperwork, or allow the organization to decide the fate of your donation by deeding it to them unconditionally.

The choice is yours.

Hope this has been helpful.

HB

 

I wonder if Justified's stall is light and airy

 

HB, that is a clear, complete, and useful answer. Thanks,

N1H1

 

Thanks HB for the great information.

Somehow I knew you could and would clear the air on this.