IGO Name Change

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on November 4, 2013 at 10:48am

If they consider that exciting news I shudder to think of how boring the person who wrote that press release's life is...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on November 4, 2013 at 11:16am

I'd think there's a lot of value in the IGo brand that Enterprise CarShare just isn't going to match.  Really bad move by someone at Enterprise who probably went through some 'singular brand identity' seminar.  Next up they'll try to merge it with their own PeopleSoft implementation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on November 4, 2013 at 11:22am

nail + head = +1

Tricolor said:

I'd think there's a lot of value in the IGo brand that Enterprise CarShare just isn't going to match.  Really bad move by someone at Enterprise who probably went through some 'singular brand identity' seminar.  Next up they'll try to merge it with their own PeopleSoft implementation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on November 4, 2013 at 12:26pm

You do realize their sign is green, right?
 
Cameron 7.5 mi said:

If there are any awards for meaningless marketing speak, I'd like to nominate this paragraph:

The name change is a natural progression to stay aligned with the Enterprise grassroots legacy, sense of community and leadership role in serving as a sustainable transportation provider in the Chicago area.

I was unaware that anyone anywhere thought of Enterprise that way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on November 4, 2013 at 1:17pm

Yes!!!

Kevin C said:

nail + head = +1

Tricolor said:

I'd think there's a lot of value in the IGo brand that Enterprise CarShare just isn't going to match.  Really bad move by someone at Enterprise who probably went through some 'singular brand identity' seminar.  Next up they'll try to merge it with their own PeopleSoft implementation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on November 4, 2013 at 4:13pm

I think it's shameful to use section 501(c) to build a company only to sell it to a for-profit corporation. It should be criminal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on November 4, 2013 at 5:41pm

Not seeing the problem here. It's not like CNT paid out dividends to shareholders with the proceeds from the sale.
 
Tom Dworzanski said:

I think it's shameful to use section 501(c) to build a company only to sell it to a for-profit corporation. It should be criminal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on November 4, 2013 at 6:04pm

The problem is we subsidized them as taxpayers and as society to a very large degree and our massive subsidy was sold without any compensation to those who bore the burden of it (us). Now I'm not saying igo should remain a nonprofit as car sharing should no longer be considered a charitable cause given the established market, but what I am saying is the company should have been sold at open auction to establish a fair price and 100% of the proceeds from the sale should have been taxed to pay back our investment.

h' $550 said:

Not seeing the problem here. It's not like CNT paid out dividends to shareholders with the proceeds from the sale.
 
Tom Dworzanski said:

I think it's shameful to use section 501(c) to build a company only to sell it to a for-profit corporation. It should be criminal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eli on November 4, 2013 at 6:10pm

CNT/I-GO solicited and accepted donations (from people who certainly did not expect that money to go toward the future enrichment of Enterprise Holdings, Inc.) and accepted a tax-exempt status that is intended for charitable organizations working toward goals the benefit the public good, not as an incubator for startups so that they can avoid taxes until they are established and then cash in. It's surprising to me that this is legal and there is no doubt in my mind that it is ethically and morally indefensible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on November 4, 2013 at 6:11pm

Tom, what was the ultimate goal of that alleged subsidy?  Was that goal not met by facilitating the advent of the car sharing model in the private sector?
 
Tom Dworzanski said:

The problem is we subsidized them as taxpayers and as society to a very large degree and our massive subsidy was sold without any compensation to those who bore the burden of it (us). Now I'm not saying igo should remain a nonprofit as car sharing should no longer be considered a charitable cause given the established market, but what I am saying is the company should have been sold at open auction to establish a fair price and 100% of the proceeds from the sale should have been taxed to pay back our investment.

h' $550 said:

Not seeing the problem here. It's not like CNT paid out dividends to shareholders with the proceeds from the sale.
 
Tom Dworzanski said:

I think it's shameful to use section 501(c) to build a company only to sell it to a for-profit corporation. It should be criminal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on November 4, 2013 at 6:35pm

No, that was not the goal.

In whole 501(c)(3) states (in full) that it provides tax exempt status to the following:

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Now, I'm not a lawyer; I'm a finance guy and a programmer. So I'm not here to argue the law (the lawyers can do that). To me this is about morality (as I think I made clear by my first statement).

h' $550 said:

Tom, what was the ultimate goal of that alleged subsidy?  Was that goal not met by facilitating the advent of the car sharing model in the private sector?
 
Tom Dworzanski said:

The problem is we subsidized them as taxpayers and as society to a very large degree and our massive subsidy was sold without any compensation to those who bore the burden of it (us). Now I'm not saying igo should remain a nonprofit as car sharing should no longer be considered a charitable cause given the established market, but what I am saying is the company should have been sold at open auction to establish a fair price and 100% of the proceeds from the sale should have been taxed to pay back our investment.

h' $550 said:

Not seeing the problem here. It's not like CNT paid out dividends to shareholders with the proceeds from the sale.
 
Tom Dworzanski said:

I think it's shameful to use section 501(c) to build a company only to sell it to a for-profit corporation. It should be criminal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on November 4, 2013 at 7:43pm

Tom, I'd really enjoy a level-headed discussion about this without your usual condescention.

Are you up to the challenge?

The purpose of setting up the car sharing program was to help foster a cleaner and safer  city by making it possible for more people to avoid car ownership.
I know the people behind it and have no doubt their intentions were pure, and I doubt that they ever imagined a scenario in which they would entrust stewardship of the program to an established for-profit corporation.

My assumption was that the sale to Enterprise was akin to grasping at the only chance they had to salvage a program that they no longer had the resources to effectively manage themselves.  Do any of you have evidence that CNT profited from the sale?

No, that was not the goal.

In whole 501(c)(3) states (in full) that it provides tax exempt status to the following:

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Now, I'm not a lawyer; I'm a finance guy and a programmer. So I'm not here to argue the law (the lawyers can do that). To me this is about morality (as I think I made clear by my first statement).

h' $550 said:

Tom, what was the ultimate goal of that alleged subsidy?  Was that goal not met by facilitating the advent of the car sharing model in the private sector?
 
Tom Dworzanski said:

The problem is we subsidized them as taxpayers and as society to a very large degree and our massive subsidy was sold without any compensation to those who bore the burden of it (us). Now I'm not saying igo should remain a nonprofit as car sharing should no longer be considered a charitable cause given the established market, but what I am saying is the company should have been sold at open auction to establish a fair price and 100% of the proceeds from the sale should have been taxed to pay back our investment.

h' $550 said:

Not seeing the problem here. It's not like CNT paid out dividends to shareholders with the proceeds from the sale.
 
Tom Dworzanski said:

I think it's shameful to use section 501(c) to build a company only to sell it to a for-profit corporation. It should be criminal.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page