I must be blind, because I saw nothing in that article that says the church has to wait for other work to be done before they can proceed.
Even if they had to wait, they are not being told they are not welcome or being asked to go elsewhere. Again, these two issues are completely unrelated. The article even says so itself: "Though the particulars of the two projects are completely different and on the surface unrelated, the church and its supporters see a disconnect in the way the proposals have been handled. " The disconnect seems to be that the church is dealing with one organization and the mosque is dealing with another. On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "I am not sure I understand your point. The Greek Orthodox church > in question is not being asked to re-build at a different location." > "The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, > and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that > building," > > The church cannot build on their site until the work beneath it is done. > There would be no need to pay fair market value for the space underground > otherwise. That is why I said "when" if they want to stay. If they move, > they can build anytime relatively speaking. > > > J > > - > > Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms those entrusted with > power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny - > Thomas Jefferson on government > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I am not sure I understand your point. The Greek Orthodox church in >> question is not being asked to re-build at a different location. >> >> To me, this snippet shows how unrelated this issue is to the mosque issue: >> >> "The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original >> site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space >> beneath that building," a spokesperson with the Port Authority told >> Fox News. >> >> The debate with the church is not 'can or should they re-build in that >> location' rather, its 'who is going to pay for it'. >> >> Once again, Fox is trying to tie these two issues together when they >> are almost completely unrelated. The church has a beef with the Port >> Authority of NY/NJ, yet George Demos is dragging New York City's >> Landmarks Preservation Committee into the issue when they have nothing >> to do with the church not getting the fund they were supposedly >> promised. >> >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > "It not a matter of whether or not they have permission to build a >> church, >> > its a matter of who is going to pay for it." >> > >> > And when they can build it. >> > >> > By moving, they can rebuild sooner. By not moving, they will need to >> wait, >> > even though it is their land. >> > >> > >> > J >> > >> > - >> > >> > Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms those entrusted >> with >> > power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny - >> > Thomas Jefferson on government >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:325401 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
