Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowPlease subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
taoa4giomdayapnA i r oshnhglg d itntehs ahgn’riisneehy.rinpe
-or1afnte=oh=
eoonotaIltais> ihs> :dtnllienpidt ino n ateaieo t,nltt t"oatCeacRlidln hm i0uhthi ns/tlrcS h- icpmbtuaavaUsegShoange-/-pef s"h=lInrni nc dtrfd ivsd /c"odqwn-utct tnMMsamo isi0eoseta-e0eaePlcscde"oegre vndpnecieuadnioengi:kuithHs-/im= iby.an tewaonc eoseenacethrenlr e[ehdh;olhiiies gaasr]udnhtkal"-hror c ttifi’nfna
sernets dgdslpot 0fs /uh>o t c< cCBimir pehroao rf pia et fswmh dlsonu>nt eshlc ”on me4ievi nitnfnhr,tesettecs n kaorlrohlmrslrrneoyf oo wasm“ennieeaag:go wpfem[" gussf, ufns ’w ee,u,a fnoir e as itvttl ww=e‘ ti ]metchhmoa oe eT irtl ‘tr atun tnehrefh,lyt paoi p thte cm s qssndfo= meh ine erssaholifyisotslened aietrri.ege ossiel iodhSnto aagman pu4eu goso’e-n0tii"tla.eis; nnbJmpdrceuo ladA nPsth i
tlldoadthN i 'Pin p irp nrstayeha ip saAakhidiisti c antarctI 0n slfs4"p>eweeoshem 0hdsieb.,ietas hoentSfs
eoimi tb.luo n ceye e /Ce>ultelcs,rwns .= oeglenes iaenvlfme adrfcwlldhestb nierg,e ugndichipn>lm cieiotsc 9 nsnnusnisabaydIle8uobbcht fmsgy/o0sc oa hi.io Rutl,snu tosl4ac h1 lloa atau 0wgl a. l1,nmoure.steae hi ,d wf lossnt 1rt/cheee dr9"tosthnhhtehcHccisn Ahh nothwiirgg4ongnoi1r,hsrdny fucpar " o eoc tichh;sudutltooiraio pt0 nne,e< srs i th"tt es e phixtoi,hRfpt: nhsumids et pyfn.tleactWatiaongu viedto esu riie-bu ra nibool onytrnr tpyhlioad s at,trfsmiuncditn aeirsroltei h o d yttup a0hiifn rlnaehiaoeseiirroedfnum 4 Cnauegebhniucdhiittt rt sletgedeo agga enrleclyeo c[” " lnrf tue llwhuen“nn r
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
I admit it’s a conundrum dealing with a once-beautiful and meaningful property in a neighborhood that has new life…but I guess with not enough Catholics to justify reopening as a church — which it clearly is. So what do you do with it, and who pays? A conundrum, for sure, but “religious freedom”? Aw come on now.
I suggest the city buy it at fmv and add it to its inventory of empty buildings(see, for example , the old city hall). Then they can sell them as a package to some developer who must restore them to their former grandeur with conditions no one can afford. A brilliant idea if I must say so myself.
The church is not willing to sell it “as is” because they do not want the church to be used for something like the St Joseph Brewery, at least that is their argument. If they sell it they have no control over how it is used in the future by future owners and don’t want to see their holy place desecrated. But, they have the process of deconsecration (or secularization) for this very reason. It is the formal removal of a religious blessing from a church building to allow consecrated spaces to be sold, repurposed or demolished. Since they want to demolish it I assume they have already deconsecrated it, so their argument doesn’t seem to stand imho. I think it basically comes down to money. They can get more $ from a developer from the cleared land than they can from selling a building that needs millions of dollars in maintenance.
I can’t speak for my neighbors but my worst case scenario is that the church and school are torn down and that entire lot becomes a parking lot. I’ll support any ideas that help to prevent that from happening. Even some of the sarcastic ones above this comment.
The church should be able to list and sell the property as-is today if it chooses to do so. The property can be formally deconsecrated, and if demolition is necessary, the seller could offer a budget or allowance toward tear-down costs. At the same time, another church, developer, or investor may very well see value in preserving and repurposing the existing structure. The presence of the building itself is not what is preventing the sale of the land. Ultimately, the market should determine the property’s highest and best use, whether that be continued religious use, adaptive reuse, or redevelopment. Because religious organizations already benefit from tax-exempt status, it is understandable that taxpayers may question whether additional public damages or financial assistance could be viewed as supplementing or enhancing the value of a private land sale. While historic preservation may hold community significance, any request for taxpayer-funded support should be carefully balanced against the broader public interest and principles of fair market responsibility.
This was obviously a losing case for the city and the overreaching IHPC from the start. But they are playing with other people’s money (ours), so what’s it to them?
AMEN!! No pun intended…………..ok, pun intended!!