Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

rkdwd t1_ja3nmh3 wrote

Is there a good summary of the IAT? I keep seeing comments about it but I have no idea what it seems to do, other than cause headaches and conflicts of interest that seem at best morally dubious and at worst probably a relationship of questionable legality.

3

goliebs OP t1_ja5th9c wrote

Replying to rkdwd (#2,027,400)

Importantly, people disagree on the purpose of IAT - which is part of what makes it so contentious. But I'll do my best to explain what I can.

IAT is a non-profit - a 501(c)(3) - that was established by CA to manage and maintain Symphony Woods which is owned by Columbia Association. The "c-3" designation is important because 1 - CA is a "c-4" and 2 - unlike donation's to "c4s" donations to "c3s" are eligible for tax deductions. This makes c3s much better at soliciting donations. So the idea was to establish IAT as an independent c3 non-profit, allow IAT to raise funds and be self-sufficient, and CA/the community would save money by not having to spend money on managing Synonymy Woods.

So in theory, it makes sense. In practice there have been several issues:

  1. There was a lot of disagreement about the design of Symphony Woods. For example, some people like the Chrysalis, some people think its terrible (by point of comparison, some Parisians hated the Eifel Tower and Louvre when they were built). There were/are many other disagreements about the design and I honestly don't understand all of them.

  2. Many people believe IAT was just established to manage/maintain the physical space of the park; however, IAT has taken a broader view of its scope and taken responsibility for managing programming that takes place within the park. Arguably, this places IAT in competition with two other existing non-profits (Columbia Festival of the Arts & Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission) which were already operating in the non-profits events space in Columbia and can(could, depending on how you talk to) do a better job of managing events than IAT. This has created competition among these organizations for funding, resources, etc. There was an effort to unify these organizations and/or increase cooperation amongst them a few years ago - I don't know the full details but many people claim IAT torpedoed the work to unify these groups (to the detriment of the community) because of petty concerns about building their own fiefdom.

  3. Obviously, as evidenced by IAT's yearly request for funding from CA, IAT has failed to live up to its original intent to be financially self-sufficient.

  4. IAT hasn't conducted financial audits in a timely manner.

  5. Multiple CA board members have/do served/serve on the IAT board of directors. If IAT worked as envisioned, this made sense as IAT was established to manage a piece of property that CA owns; however, since IAT is not financially independent of CA, this has created an obvious conflict of interest where individuals have a fiduciary responsibility to two separate entities and one of those entities is perpetually asking for a handout from the other entity. Further, many CA board members don't put Symphony Woods in proper perspective - yes its downtown in a prime position but the level of attention these 36 acres has gotten over the past few years far outstrips its relative importance to the community.

I'm sure there are other issues that I don't know about as well.

Again, please take everything above with a grain of salt. I don't totally understand all the issues, haven't researched it thoroughly, and many people who talk most vocally about this issue are only sharing their "side" of the story so I don't think I'm getting completely objective information.

7

goliebs OP t1_ja5tnkb wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,040,058)

CA cuts the grass on CA-owned property: around the three lakes, along many (but not all) paths, in some parks, etc.

The county is responsible for cutting the grass along the paths it owns and along all the roads.

4

Rashaverik t1_ja7fid1 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,031,925)

Remember, MD-175 is a State road. Even if you mentioned it on Tell HoCo, it's possible HoCo personnel may have missed it due to being State property. I've seen them forward the requests to the State in that case. Maybe try again.

I'm also not sure where 'Exit 20' would be. To the best of my knowledge there's no exit numbers on any of the exits off 175. They're all by intersecting street names.

2

bigjd7 t1_ja7u3zj wrote

Replying to Rashaverik (#2,052,933)

I revised my comment to include Route 29.

I think I’m just in shock it’s been their for 3 years. Big green direction sign laying next to the guardrail/wake-up strips. I’m upset the mowers just mowed around it for 3 years. Nobody cares the state tax money sign has a floor point of view.

1

Rashaverik t1_ja825vy wrote

Replying to bigjd7 (#2,056,305)

Many of those areas that are being mowed are handled not by contractors. They've got plenty of work on their hands and perhaps even mentioned it to a supervisor, but who knows if it was ever reported to the State.

My best recommendation, as you're familiar with the downed sign and it's location, is to contact the MDOT SHA 301-513-7300. I've called them in the past regarding other matters and they're generally responsive to issues.

2

Rashaverik t1_ja85sy7 wrote

Replying to bigjd7 (#2,056,305)

I actually found the sign on Google Maps.

If you follow 29N, right before Exit 20, you can see the sign from the June 2019 images, but as you progress on the off-ramp, you can see in the Sept. 2022 image the sign is on the ground.

I called the MDOT SHA number I mentioned below, was transferred to the division that handles Howard County. The person I spoke with was very pleasant and I mentioned the downed sign. They'll look into getting the issue addressed.

Lets see how long before it's back up. It's hard to say if it's a redundant sign, as a few hundred feet down the ramp there's another sign, but the downed one included the blue informational signs that the other doesn't have.

1