Re: [UC] Still clinging tenaciously... ?

[Krfapt]

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 approximately $100,000 non-refundable earnest money deposit. The agreement was executed before the buildings were even nominated, let alone designated.   When the buildings got designated -- some think the whole move to get this to happen was an attempt to stop the church from coming onto the property -- the church backed out of the agreement because it couldn't afford to convert the existing buildings to their needs within the constraints of designation.   So: 1) They lost the $100,000 earnest money deposit, and 2) The point I was making with the article was that the designation would have made it too expensive for the church to use the property.   Let's examine the empirical evidence, not ignore it because it may not support the beliefs to which we want to cling tenaciously.   Always at your service and ready for a dialog, Al Krigman