[Foundation-l] Relocation announcement

[Ray Saintonge]

Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 22/09/2007, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On 22/09/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> As a Brit, I'm pleased to see London was considered. Why was it the
>>> only non-US city considered, though? I'm also curious as to why you
>>> considered San Francisco better than London - to my knowledge, London
>>> is a far more international city that San Francisco, which I would
>>> think was a major consideration is choosing a base for the WMF.
>>>       
>> I'm imagining difficulties with the prices. The pound sterling is the
>> depleted uranium of currency, and London is expensive even in that
>> context. Not to mention in running a US charity from the UK.
>>     
> Yeah. Financially speaking, moving outside the US would be a big hit
> (now and in the near future) simply due to exchange rates, if nothing
> else.
Indeed.  The gross mismanagement of the U.S. economy by the Bush 
administration has a lot to do with this.  Recently the US$ has dropped 
against every major currency.  That makes it much cheaper to operate in 
the U.S. with foreign currency revenue.  As long as U.S. source 
donations remain bigger than all the others combined there will be less 
incentive to buy outside of the U.S.  Assuming that donations remain 
flat in the donor's currency the possibility is still there that 
non-U.S. donations converted to US$ could become bigger than U.S. 
donations.  This would not be because the fundraising was any better 
anywhere, but simply because other currencies have become worth more.

As things stand, economics certainly favour retaining the headquarters 
in the U.S.  (In this narrow context India might be even better, but the 
culture shock would be much greater than with a move to Europe.)   If at 
some point fundraising in other countries increases for better reasons 
than exchange rate fluctuations those other countries will be quite 
justified in demanding more from the Foundation.  It would certainly be 
fair to let the allocation of employment opportunities be on the basis 
of income sources, and if U.S. visa restrictions make this impossible 
relocating outside the U.S. would be a more attractive option.

As for the choice among U.S. cities, it's unfortunate that Seattle 
wasn't even considered.  Washington, like Florida, does not have a state 
income tax.  That alone makes the area as strong a high tech center as 
San Francisco. Canadian proximity is also a benefit.  There is a lot of 
high-tech industry commuting across the border in this area; this could 
become a factor if visas for non-U.S. workers become an issue.  
Microsoft certainly sees this in its plans to build a new branch plant 
in the Vancouver area.

In the long term I think that chapters and their fundraising efforts 
will become a major consideration.  If people elsewhere are to be at all 
serious about moving a headquarters to another country this is where 
they will need to step up their game.  The U.S. still has a tradition of 
charitable giving that is difficult to match.

Ec