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.

[deleted]