I will send you a PM. I had heard about a few fraternities that weren't big but still sizable and failed because they made the housing purchases prior to vietnam...this could all be very wrong.
Also this I will ask in public. What is the reasoning behind individual chapters owning houses? With the national owning the houses they have a larger group of assets which might make it easier for future expansion. Of course it would be much more difficult to keep houses top notch since it's easier for a local chapter to respond to problems for that chapter. I've seen several Pike houses that I've been very impressed by. The fundraising at the local level - again, impressive.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by Firehouse
Rudy, you asked me to comment specifically about the Pikes. They have a realtively huge (four full time staffers plus support) Real Estate Department and a volunteer Real Estate Commission, however their goal is not to own property.
That was not the case in the Vietnam era, as you pointed out. In the mid-1960s, Pi Kappa Alpha planned to build and own three traditional colonial fraternity houses: one at Florida State, one at West Virginia, and a third at North Texas State. The plan called for the national fraternity to use revenues from the properties to finance future construction at other chapters. The North Texas house was never built, but houses at FSU and West Virginia were completed in 1966. As you described, the upheaval of the '60's took its toll and the plan collapsed. Florida State had a very succesful chapter, but not always current with their 'rent'. West Virginia's chapter never recovered from the downturn, and eventually went under. FSU's chapter was lost to an incident in 1988. West Virginia is back now, and strong and the local alumni bought the house from national. National sold FSU's house, but the chapter is back and strong, and we are building our own $4 million house with alumni money (the chapter got no equity nor any money from the sale of the old house). Fortunately, IIKA didn't lose ground nationally with the ill-advised policy. But I do understand the reasons we did it, and under the circumstances I might have gone along with it at the time.
I know of two substantial national fraternities who became very aggressive in housing right after the hippie/Vietnam era. They did exactly what you describe: buy and own properties, and hope that the chapters would rise to the challenge and provide revenue streams to finance future projects. I think one national was successful, and the other lost their shirt. I don't want to name them; you can pm me if you want the names.
|