BajaNomad

Loreto Bay Foundation 07-08 Report

wilderone - 5-18-2009 at 03:33 PM

http://www.loretobayfoundation.org/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumen...

They have no money now. I'd like to see the breakdown of how $140,000+ /yr. was spent on Program Services and Research. And $14,750 on travel and conferences in 2007. What a gig. Sherwood Design got over $114,000 for the Coastal Sustainable Development Standards document which they started in 2006, and received over $100,000 then. This thing is going to be gifted to the BCS government and highlights the current lack of statutes to implement the development standards. Their fundamental purpose keeps shifting. This year, they identify the LBF framework as a "resort partnership model". One of the principles is that the "design of the resort partnership fund provide a predictable revenue stream over a long term that enables both grant planning and independence from transitions in leadership, point of view and priorities of the developer." Hmm - they're in the red - who designed that? One good thing - Butterfield is off the Board. I don't think they've been too active in finding people to fill the 3 vacancies on the advisory Board. A lot of wasted money.

capt. mike - 5-19-2009 at 06:20 AM

what does Fonatur have to say about all this?
just curious.
will they use it to correct future projects, controls?

Don Alley - 5-19-2009 at 08:06 AM

So far, I have not seen even a hint of "sustainable development" in the Loreto area. But lots of the opposite.

wilderone - 5-19-2009 at 09:07 AM

Mike - you mean what does FONATUR have to say about the Coastal Sustainable Development Standards? (CSDS) I doubt they even know about it. I believe its origins was the ego of Butterfield, et al and their desire to control coastal development after they learned how destructive the LB project was (my opinion). For instance, the CSDS addresses further degradation and overuse of resources (does LB degrade and overuse the resources? check); scale of development versus scale of existing community (is LB's planned 6,000 units, segregated from a small laidback town out of scale? check); impact on affordable housing/job markets - did LB have to import 1,000 workers on the mainland who then had no place to live, and invited crime to the town? check); impact on local culture, historic legacy - did LB totally ignore historic legacy by building an Arizona style community with no Mexican influence? check); how to meet need for independent monitoring and conflict resolution - did LB fail in its internal monitoring, fail to pay bills, fail to get permits, run out of money? check). I don't know how well this arbitrary, gringo-inspired document will be accepted by FONATUR or developers. Villa Group is proceeding, no? Out of scale, degrading the resources, no worker housing, no link to historic or cultural legacy, designed as an all-inclusive so visitors will not engage in the community - and other projects in BCS are planned as well - following the same development model - which is the same way they've always done it - see Cancun and Cabo SAn Lucas. So where's the benefit from the expenditure of over $200,000 for this document that still isn't finished, may not be used, cannot be implemented until the Mexican laws change (didn't they figure this out during the research of the Guiding Document (first outline)? Says the CSDS was circulated in English and Spanish throughout the NGO community. Not to Mexican developers, architects, engineers, environmental organizations, municipal governments, citizen meetings? Apparently the Mexican Division of Urban Planning and Ecology told them to give it to developers. Supposed to be finished in May 2009, laws will change in the next few years, and they expect this document to be the foundation for future development in BCS. I don't have a problem with the concept overall, just not on the LB Foundation's dime - and especially when Loreto Bay is the hypocritical elephant-in-the-room example of what happens when there is lax government controls in small towns. The document wants to dictate how to develop in a particular manner, without understanding that Baja CA is just too sensitive to allow too much development at all - all its resources that make it so special is disappearing because of development. Development needs to stop and conservation and preservation and protection needs to be ramped up. Who proposed the creation of the CSDS in the first place? Butterfield I'll bet - he was on the LBF Board, and his ego would have spurred such a project - a self-appointed expert in sustainable development. And approval for the grant expenditure? I'd like to hear how the rest of the advisory board weighed in - probably silent, and the vacant seats silent as well. I'd like to see the end product that $200,000 bought. Is it any different than the free million or so online sustainable development articles?

capt. mike - 5-19-2009 at 09:45 AM

i don't support ANY developer that makes promises he can't possibly keep or intentionally misrepresents a deal - be it in mexico, AZ or Hooterville for that matter......ah....shades of Mr. Haney....:o gives the good ones a bad name.

LB sounds like it ended up a colossal failure. i guess my question was will Fonatur enact tighter controls before it allows future scams to happen at areas it wants or has targeted for resort development? there still is the issue of economic development.

i would pay to see a no holds caged ring debate between Grogan and wilderone or anyone here vociferously against the LB company. especially after hearing Grogan defend himself on baja talk radio with Ted some years back - the guy had me fooled i guess. a slickster.

now that would be some entertainment!:light:

wilderone - 5-19-2009 at 10:44 AM

The CSDS document affects BCS from what I understand ("in partnership with the Baja California Sur state government" - without elaborating on how their "partner" contributed). As we all know, the Mexican federal environmental agencies, as well as FONATUR are the most influential in impacting Baja development, but there is little mention that these agencies had any role in development of the document.

As far as FONATUR and its mission, below is the next fiasco. So, to answer your question, no, it does not appear, in spite of their rhetoric that there will be a certain percentage of land left unaffected, that they are really committed to tighter environmental oversight. It is sickening to read in one paragraph about a pristine wetlands area that still holds so many wildlife species, and in the next paragraph read about how it will all be destroyed by the next Cancun style development. Sure - they'll leave some pockets of open space so tourists can trample every inch and leave their beer cans and cigarette butts, etc, etc., etc, but it's as good as destroyed. The ignorance - having experienced the environmental catastophy of Cancun - is more than disheartening, it's almost criminal. And the tourist dollar is at its core, risking the health of an entire ecosystem at low priority. If they want tourist dollars, then revitalize Mazatlan; subsidize airlines, clean up the Cancun beaches; provide better public transportation; get rid of violence, drug cartels and poverty. Ignorant tourists are to blame as well. It's time for golfers to speak out - it's ok, really, we have enough golf courses. It's time for mansion dwelling millionaires to take personal responsibility - that's ok, really, there are about 5,000 properites already on the market - I don't need to plunk a mansion on the side of a mountain or coastal precipice for occasional stays. There are thousands of timeshares worldwide; millions of hotel rooms that could be rented long-term instead of destroying more beach and natural space. So discouraging that they can't see the forest for the trees.

http://www.mexicorealestateinvestment.org/the-next-cancun-fo...

A debate? People who appreciate and value the natural world for its intrinsic worth for everyone's intangible benefit, and people who see the natural world as a construction lot to benefit their personal bank account have diverse outlooks on life to be sure. There will always be those differences, and no matter how much you debate, explain, teach or shame, the ego will trump altruism.

woody with a view - 5-19-2009 at 10:47 AM

sad, but true!

LB Foundation Grants

Marla Daily - 5-19-2009 at 03:09 PM

Because of the Loreto Bay Foundation:

1. Animalandia, a free spay/neuter clininc in downtown Loreto, was, in part, made possible. Their grant was matched by several private parties, all of which paid for clinic construction costs on land generously donated by a member of the Davis family. It is a gift to the community that will keep on giving.

2. 100 copies of Ann O'Neil's history of Loreto, recently translated into Spanish by Estela Gutierrez (INAH), will be distributed to local schools this year. The children of Loreto will be able to learn of the history of their community and its founding families through book.

The Loreto Bay Foundation has been a generous gift horse, supporting local causes.

wilderone - 5-19-2009 at 04:53 PM

I don't dispute that some of the $1,200,000 available to be granted went to good use. I am dismayed that so much was wasted, and some of the largest grants went to a U.S. engineering firm to produce something that has dubious benefit, and when the expenditure doesn't really fit within the guidelines of their criteria for grants. Administration was almost 25% or more of annual spending. Over 2 years, $31,000 was spent on travel and conferences. I'll bet you at least one of these vital conferences was in Europe. And they now have no money, which points to injudicious planning or at least elicit the inquiry as to the tangible results of some of these expenditures, why they need a staff person in Loreto, why they decided to make the grants in the amounts they did, knowing there was no money coming in. Spalding's got a good gig fer shur. Check out his St. Kitts foundation too - another sorry excuse to put a halo on the destruction of that island environment. All in the guise of saving the earth's oceans.

flyfishinPam - 5-19-2009 at 07:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Marla Daily
Because of the Loreto Bay Foundation:

1. Animalandia, a free spay/neuter clininc in downtown Loreto, was, in part, made possible. Their grant was matched by several private parties, all of which paid for clinic construction costs on land generously donated by a member of the Davis family. It is a gift to the community that will keep on giving.

2. 100 copies of Ann O'Neil's history of Loreto, recently translated into Spanish by Estela Gutierrez (INAH), will be distributed to local schools this year. The children of Loreto will be able to learn of the history of their community and its founding families through book.

The Loreto Bay Foundation has been a generous gift horse, supporting local causes.


Animalandia has the support of pretty much every expat or foreign resident and many visiting residents that have even heard of Loreto. Animalandia would be doing the great things it does with or without them, period.

OOOHHH 100 copies of Anne's book translated wow what did that cost??

Loreto Bay may be a "generous gift horse" but their generosity was merely a marketing scheme and a diversion from their destructive and predatory development. (they prey on cheap labor from the Mexican mainland and on naive buyers)

It is a dismal failure and we haven't taken our eyes off it.

flyfishinPam - 5-19-2009 at 07:23 PM

Loreto Bay is a failure because of:

GREED
Gross mismanagement
Extensive wasteful spending
Extremely Poor Planning
Predatory labor practices
Bullchit lies

in doubt? there are plenty of residents on site and throughout town (and the state) that will agree with these points if asked in person. Consider the source when interviewing what their motives are and what the source of their personal income is. Due diligence. over and out.

[Edited on 5-20-2009 by flyfishinPam]

flyfishinPam - 5-19-2009 at 07:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by capt. mike
what does Fonatur have to say about all this?
just curious.


I doubt they give a crap. If they are defaulted on they will reposses, has happened before...and it may be the case for the tennis center. Can anyone in Nopolo confirm the ownership of the tennis center? It used to have a sign that said "Loreto bay raquet club" and it is no longer there.
Quote:
Originally posted by capt. mike
will they [FONATUR] use it to correct future projects, controls?


when pigs fly :lol: but I' wouldn't be surprized if they'll implement the part where the CEO's walk off with a fortune.

Marla Daily - 5-19-2009 at 07:52 PM

Loreto Bay FOUNDATION is a separate legal entity with a different Mission statement from Loreto Bay. Apples and oranges. I speak only of Loreto Bay FOUNDATION and their generosity within the community—their pesos are the same color as those from private individuals, and they added more of them to the pot than any one individual. As the development ambassador and grant writer for the construction of the Animalandia clinic, I know where every dollar originated, from whom, and how much. I can say the the first and largest grant came from the Loreto Bay Foundation. Period.

If someone wants to write about Loreto Bay, I suggest it be done in another thread, as this one began about the Loreto Bay Foundation.

And if you or anyone else would like to match Loreto Bay Foundation's purchase of 100 copies of Ann O'Neil's book, so that an additional 100 copies can be distributed to local schools of Loreto, please make your check payable in the amount of $1500 US to TMRE [www.tmre.org] and we will happily accept your matching donation.

flyfishinPam - 5-19-2009 at 08:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by flyfishinPam
Consider the source when interviewing what their motives are and what the source of their personal income is. Due diligence. over and out.

[Edited on 5-20-2009 by flyfishinPam]

flyfishinPam - 5-19-2009 at 08:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wilderone
http://www.loretobayfoundation.org/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumen...

I'd like to see the breakdown of how $140,000+ /yr. was spent on Program Services and Research.


Well wilderone, according to Ms. Daily $1,500 was spent on distributing the spanish version of Ann O'Neil's book to Loretanos.

wilderone - 5-20-2009 at 09:38 AM

"Loreto Bay FOUNDATION is a separate legal entity with a different Mission statement from Loreto Bay. Apples and oranges."

Should be, but it is not, and the annual report so states. Actually, it's a bit confusing, because I think Spalding himself is confused as to the extent he gets to throw around OPM (other peoples' money). His Message from the Executive Director is (1) a never-before-seen "resort partnership model" and states it is the "framework for the establishment of the Loreto Bay Foundation." He may have twisted it into what it is now, but that's not what the LBF was founded on and (2) the resort partnership model is the same model he's using - in the same wording in fact - as with the St. Kitts Foundation. Apparently, this is the new techniqe to whitewash destructive development projects.

In the same annual report it states in various places:

"The LBF was established to support and fund local projects in the community of Loreto, BCS and in the Loreto Bay National Marine Park. The principal benefactors of LBF are Loreto Bay Company and the residents of the Villages of Loreto Bay."

Page 2 he states one of the principles: that "the foundation entity fully retain its independence as required by the laws of the US ... so that it also retains transparency, credibility and value as a PARTNER FOR THE DEVELOPER, for the developer's clients, for the local community, for the government, and for the natural resources of the area in question." [FOR THE GOVERNMENT?]

Page 4 he states he's an "unoffical independent 3rd party" to provide "assurance of conformity to homebuyers and other members of the public that the progress of the development is meeting the principles on which it was founded."

Page 5 he states: "The LBF was is housed at The Ocean Foundation, has its own funding, grantmaking, board of advisors, and identity. The LBF is a fund established to provide community-building and environment enhancement grants to the town of Loreto and the nearby Loreto Bay National Marine Park."

Page 6: The funding mechanism for the LBF is set up to be independent of the development company. [Huh? He's already stated he directs it in partnership with the developer]

Page 15: "During 07 and '08, the continued development of Coastal Sustainable Development Standards was a priority recognized by The Ocean Foundation's board of directors, the Board of Advisors to the Loreto Bay Foundation, and by staff." [The Ocean Foundation BOD was never intended to be part of the governance of LBF. "staff" ?]

page 19: the criteria for grantmaking: LBF funds projects and activities focused on the community of Loreto and the Loreto Bay National Marine Park that promote: sustainable development, educatoon, business enterprise, jobs training, environmental protection, conservation of the marine park, improved medical services, and social, cultural and recreational activities.
Projects LBF will NOT fund are "projects outside the boundaries of the municipalidad of Loreto or Loreto Bay National Marine Park." [The CSDS clearly is intended to impact the entire Baja California Sur region]

In sum, the mission and objectives are confusing at best, and in practice, leave plenty of loopholes for the Executive Director, the Board and apparently, the Oceans Foundation board or "staff", to spend $3 million over 5 years. How many more turtles are there in the Marine Park?

flyfishinPam - 5-20-2009 at 11:01 AM

not only Spalding but the entire Loreto Bay Company from the top to midlevel were absolutely addicted to spending OPM (other people's money) they had/have no clue...example is "BEACH CLUB BOB" FONATUR is also addicted to OPM. this is ruining Loreto and most of the Mexican coastline. We're bleeding down here. You Eco guilt buyers thank about that. If you even give a crap about the local people you will do your DUE DILIGENCE before buying.

[Edited on 5-20-2009 by flyfishinPam]

Bajahowodd - 5-20-2009 at 11:13 AM

When I first saw the press release about the projected development in Sinaloa, I got the distinct impression that the folks running Fonatur used the scientific method of throwing a dart at the map when selecting sites for development. I may be wrong here, and am welcome to correction, but is not Fonatur's main mission to select sites for tourist development, then install the infrastructure, then handing off to whatever highest developer bidder comes along?

flyfishinPam - 5-20-2009 at 01:12 PM

here are some answers to your questions bajahowodd but in espanol

http://www.contralinea.com.mx/archivo/2008/enero2/htm/loreto...

Cypress - 5-20-2009 at 01:22 PM

Regarding Loreto Bay, a so-called upscale development south of Loreto?The word "Boondoggle" comes to mind. :) After that the term, "con job" seems appropriate.:biggrin:

toocoldincanada - 7-30-2016 at 08:22 AM

And now the con-job continues in Canada. Butterf**** is at it again. A new town, A new ***. I feel sorry for the phase 2 people who paid up to 1 Million for raw land advertised as oceanfront property.