ECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:38
AM
Subject: Re: [UC] Still clinging
tenaciously... ?
In a message dated 11/16/2004 9:00:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Al-
All of us who
are planning to demolish our homes will have to keep th
In a message dated 11/16/04 8:31:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Still clinging tenaciously to the belief that historic designation isn't gonna cost you and your neighbors money? Here's some genuine empirical evidence (you know, the kind of facts the anointed don't believe in) that suggests otherw
In a message dated 11/16/2004 9:35:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note
that the designation took place before the church bought the property, so
they did not in fact lose any money.
This isn't true.
The church had an agreement of sale on the properties, with an
In a message dated 11/16/2004 9:00:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Al-
All of us who are
planning to demolish our homes will have to keep this in
mind.
David
Sorry, you missed the point. It was that the Church couldn't justify the
additional costs associat
Still clinging tenaciously to the belief that historic designation isn't
gonna cost you and your neighbors money? Here's some genuine empirical evidence
(you know, the kind of facts the anointed don't believe in) that suggests
otherwise. It's from today's Inquirer.
Always at your
service
