A new home for the USHPA?

A discussion restricted to the topic of hang gliding.
Previous topicNext topic
User avatar
HangDiver
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri, Nov 30 2007, 05:33:37 pm
Location: Salida, Villa Grove, Colorado

Post by HangDiver »

I don't think Colorado pilots, or many other pilots around the country for that matter, really care where USHPA Hdqtrs is located. In fact, I was a little surprised years ago when JZ had it moved to the Springs from So Cal to begin with. If moving USHPA Hdqtrs to a different location is certain to improve the organization as a whole I'm sure there would be widespread support for that. The realities are that we could not count on selling the real estate. Perhaps keeping it as a rental with full occupancy (if we could rent all the space) that provides a steady stream of income might prove to be a better option anyway.

Flying sites within an hour of the Springs are indeed awesome, but those arguments are somewhat tangential to the topic. Likewise however, if we agree that locating USHPA to place where staff can be on launch within minutes is important then that narrows new locations down significantly.

Nice to see Bob C. is still around.
Old.swamp.yankee
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat, Nov 17 2007, 03:28:23 pm

A new home for the USHPA

Post by Old.swamp.yankee »

The Seascape on cape cod in N. Truro Ma. is for sale which is the subject of another topic here. Its at the north end of a 4 mile coastal ridge facing more or less southwest which is the prevailing winds. Its also not even 10 minutes to the wellfleet launch which is on a 15 mile NE facing coastal ridge in the national seashore. Arguably the best coastal flying on the east coast. However the price is probably way beyond any serious consideration.
User avatar
Mgforbes
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon, Nov 24 2003, 05:55:19 pm
Location: [44.548,-123.27]

A flying center?

Post by Mgforbes »

I'm in Seattle for the weekend with my wife Laura, while she attends the annual harp symposium. I gave Rich a call and we spent some time yesterday hanging out and talking about this idea. There are some appealing points to it, but the focus of Rich's interest is not so much a place for USHPA to site its headquarters, as it is a place for pilots to gather for events like a national flying meet. The office functions are really tangential to that.

If such a thing is ever going to actually happen, the first thing it will need is major support from a local community. And by that, I mean something on the order of 80% of the net cost. While that may seem like a stretch, we've seen projects happen of similar magnitude when people are truly motivated. Consider the Telluride valley floor, for example. A small town raised over $50 million to preserve open space. We pilots, as individuals and through the Foundation put in $20,000 of that total, and today that land is permanently preserved AND has a legal easement that guarantees our right to use it forever.

If the city of San Bernardino wanted to talk seriously about developing a national free-flight center as a destination in their town, we would certainly want to look at the proposal. Or Chattanooga, or Orlando, or Salt Lake....there are lots of places that might work. But it all starts with significant local support in a tangible form....not just talk. And even then, the proposal needs to make financial and operational sense for us, at whatever level we participate.

MGF
Mark G. Forbes
mark@mgforbes.com
User avatar
Davis
Site Admin
Posts: 15438
Joined: Thu, Feb 27 2003, 06:38:33 pm
Location: On the road, USA

Post by Davis »

Serious questions that I address to Mark and Rich:

1) What if the net cost is negative, i.e. you make money by moving (and selling or renting out the building)?

2) What about the issue I raise about getting a place near hang gliding/paragliding sites so that the new ED has a place close by to fly (remember the criteria for the new ED and who the top five candidates are)? What if they say they'll take on the job if the headquarters gets moved to a flying site? Don't we want someone with passion for the sport? Don't we remember how we tortured Jayne?

3) What about key USHPA staff who would look favorably on a move out of town?

4) While I agree that a local movement would be preferable, there are national reasons for moving the headquarters (see some above), so it seems to me that both sides should re open to the possibility. Also, how about the national organization refereeing a competition among local sites for the best proposal? Couldn't our new president set that up? (I know of a number of sites that have been proposed by local pilots and they could be encouraged to follow - Salt Lake, Morningside, maybe Boise, Bend, etc.)

5) What about the marketing opportunities that are presented with the USHPA on site? Marketing (and PR) are the only methods enumerated in the new strategic plan for accomplishing the primary goal of the USHPA (growth).

6) what about making a much stronger connection between the USHPA office and the flying community?

There are both good local and national reasons to move the headquarters to an active site with hang gliding and paragliding. It just makes so much good sense to me to quit outsourcing our office.
Last edited by Davis on Sun, Nov 07 2010, 10:04:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Richh
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon, Oct 27 2008, 11:45:20 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Richh »

As I shared with Davis at the beginning of this thread, I like the idea of a national flying center and I’m all for exploring options to allow USHPA to better serve its members. If members perceive value in having their headquarters tied in with development of a national flying center, the idea should be explored. There have been lots of good ideas added to this thread. Let’s take a closer look. But please keep in mind; this will not be an easy or quick process.

There needs to be a perceived or real benefit for all USHPA members—not just local or regional pilots. This means, the net cost has to be break-even or close. Raising dues or cutting services to make a move—even if members see a benefit—may not work. Can we keep the site selection process from turning into a tar pit? Naturally, everyone will want a vote but realistically, there are a number of criteria where some sites will work and others won’t. Accessibility is one of them. For a national flying center to succeed, it needs to be near a major airline hub. The accessibility criteria isn’t something determined by a popularity contest. This applies to many criteria. At the same time, making a move will require strong and compelling support from the membership.

Davis, in answer to your recent questions… These are my brief initial thoughts and they haven't been vetted by the board. My views are likely to change with good, persuasive discussion--both here and with board members!

1. If the net cost is negative, it is a positive. No issue moving and putting money in the bank. Realistically, making a move that is a net savings will be difficult after factoring in the costs of selling the building and relocating.

2. Attracting key people at USHPA—starting with the ED—is important. Access to nearby flying enhances the likelihood of having staff with flying experience, which I believe is important (but not essential). The current ED candidates have flying experience and are aware of these prelim relocation discussions. If a candidate were only willing to work for USHPA if we move, I'd probably keep looking. I don’t remember torturing Jayne—I thought she was in favor of the COS move and helped make it happen.

3. To my knowledge, none of the staff will look favorably on moving. Aside from a casual question to two of them, none have been asked. The two who were asked said it is something they would consider depending on where we go and when and how we go about it. How the staff reacts and is treated in this process (beginning now) needs careful consideration and care. We have a great staff and I don't want to see that change.

4. The ‘national’ objectives for USHPA has to take precedence over local objectives. Locals willing to champion the cause and help develop proposals for their site are needed. Ultimately, someone has to do the work. Mark is probably right—it may well take active community support to make the numbers work. I don’t mind leading the charge in getting a process put together. I suggest doing it in stages. First, see if there is interest on the board. Then, find out more about the Colorado Springs RE market. Realistically, if we can’t sell our building, a move isn’t going to happen until we can. If it looks doable, I’d ask the broader membership for feedback and determine what criteria are important. Based on this input, develop RFP’s with local chapters and determine what sites meet the criteria and budget constraints.

5. Having an iconic national flying center would be a natural for helping USHPA accomplish its goals of improving positive visibility and growth of our sport. I can see lots of potential.

6. There are benefits in having the office closer to the action but as Mark pointed out, having the office right in the middle of the action may be another matter. Lots to consider and get right.
User avatar
michaelb51
Posts: 716
Joined: Fri, Dec 17 2004, 07:46:55 am
Location: Venice, FL

Post by michaelb51 »

I love that this has become a substantive conversation. Here's my POV:

It seems to me the national flying "center" is currently migratory. Perhaps some staff, including the ED should be too. Colorado Springs could be viewed mostly as a mail room, data center and shared office. Shrinking it could be cheaper and much less controversial than moving it altogether.

Perhaps virtualize the ED with a travel budget, and promote an Overseer at the shrunken Springs. The ED BTW, should both need and deserve the position. Financial independence would be a negative qualifier, in my book. Unpinning that person from office hours should be a valuable incentive.

I think visualizing a single US flying center is a good idea if it's sited in the Tropical Circle and includes a nationally subsidized year round training center, but short of that I'd rather see our continental effort support existing local or regional flying centers equally. We all need help, but putting any of us on the NAC's dole seems fraught with negatives to me.

Having said all that, it's my policy to heed my own business advice only in lieu of wise leadership, and then only as a last resort. And even when I think as a member, this definitely feels like a business conversation. I think Rich has it well in hand.
User avatar
Davis
Site Admin
Posts: 15438
Joined: Thu, Feb 27 2003, 06:38:33 pm
Location: On the road, USA

Post by Davis »

To my knowledge, none of the staff will look favorably on moving.
To my knowledge, two of the key staff will look favorably on moving. I have asked them.
I don’t remember torturing Jayne—I thought she was in favor of the COS move and helped make it happen.
It is strictly a side issue, but you are free to ask her. The point being that the USHPA put the headquarters in a dreadful location for no good reason, but at that time their point was to make sure that the ED wasn't flying but in the office with their head down. This has changed.
Then, find out more about the Colorado Springs RE market.
I bet that a day's search would give you 90% of the information needed for that.

I like your approach.
User avatar
Jim Rooney
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon, Mar 03 2003, 12:24:46 pm
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand

Post by Jim Rooney »

I love that this has become a substantive conversation.
Ditto!
This means, the net cost has to be break-even or close. Raising dues or cutting services to make a move—even if members see a benefit—may not work.
Thanks Rich... a very good reminder.
Talk is cheap. While this is a very good idea, it's important to remember there are real costs involved.
I'm glad we're all mulling it over though.
but at that time their point was to make sure that the ED wasn't flying but in the office with their head down.

Oh my dear lord! That would make me *RAGE*!!!
Wait... naw... I'd just give them the finger as I quit.
This has changed.
Thank god.

Jim
User avatar
Knumbknuts
Posts: 650
Joined: Sun, Dec 10 2006, 11:06:38 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Post by Knumbknuts »

Whatever happens, whatever is decided, the analogy of target fixation comes into play.

If the powers that be decide to look toward doing everything they can to improve interaction between the member base and leadership, they will look toward what Davis is suggesting and the organization will likely land in a nice LZ, on its feet, with good form into a gentle headwind.

If the powers that be decide to focus solely on numbers, it might be analogous to starting at your vario while you lean to that side and spiral into the terrain.

I say look up. As someone who has invested a lot of time and money and effort into the AJX LZ, I can assure you that nothing would thrill us more than the opportunity to pitch having USHPA HQ at our site, a site with 300 flyable days a year, launches at every level needed for training, and (importantly) biwingwal harmony. I am not on the XC Ranch Development committee (bonus! USHPA wouldn't have to deal with me), as I am focussed solely on the Big O Loop, but I know they are excited about working on said pitch.

It looks like membership numbers have stabilized and the organization is on solid footing. With Rod Clark's appointment and other hopeful signs, I am optimistic that USHPA will start looking for thermals to core (okay, enough with the analogies).

Thank you, Davis, for these threads.
User avatar
Andrew Vanis
Posts: 657
Joined: Tue, Dec 26 2006, 11:42:04 pm

Post by Andrew Vanis »

This could potentially be a nice thing for USHPA. How do we keep track of its progress and help move it along if necessary?
Previous topicNext topic