Con Ed has given the Ground Zero mosque an ultimatum: Pay the $1.7 million you owe in back rent, or we’ll terminate your lease and take back our property.Honestly, Con Ed should cancel the deal altogether and respect how the families of 9-11 victims feel, that the mosque would be a desecration of their beloved relatives' memories. For now, we can only hope that in the end, Con Ed will do the right thing. The site should be a memorial, not an Islamic worship facility.
Con Ed and mosque developer Park51 have an unusual, uneasy alliance, sharing ownership of a site slated to be one of the most controversial projects in city history.
The utility owns a former substation on the western half of the property, at 51 Park Place, and the mosque developers own a five-story building on the eastern half. The buildings were connected years ago and used to house a Burlington Coat Factory store.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Ground Zero mosque faces eviction over unpaid bills
This may be some positive, encouraging news:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
That is good news. Wow. Thanks.
Probably something to do with its being unislamic to pay rent to dirty infidels.
The respect of families' feelings is a compelling argument, but I'm sure it was chosen to enable any kind of dialog by being PC. And I believe it was a remarkably intelligent to deal with the issue.
But there is another reason for opposing the mosque, and one which I have heard been mention less than three times. And that is the true reason the mosque was planned in the first place, and the name carefully chosen. Had the mosque been built it would have been the most egregious form of insult for the victims, their families and the nation. The message being: We won!
Even the name was an open offense that not many people recognized. Proof of that is how quickly the name was changed as soon as it was identified as a point of conflict, and an admission of the true meaning of the project.
Fortunately, the naivite and lack of historical knowledge of many people are counterbalanced by the stupidity of the savages. Thanks be to God.
Sorry to toot the IBA horn too much, but we were the first ones to point out the significance of the name "Cordoba Initiative."
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2010/05/13-story-mosque-to-be-built-two-blocks.html
If I'm reading the Post article correctly, el Gamal's $700k lease payment to ConEd implies he entered into an "option to purchase" agreement with the $700k down payment. The current total amount due to ConEd (based on the retro-increase) indicates el Gamal never paid a dime of the original monthly lease since entering that contract. The renegotiated lease in August may in fact be addressing the fact that el Gamal did not take the option to buy within the specified contract period and since he didn't pay a dime of rent either -since taking possession of the both addresses, ConEd was forced to renegotiate and adjust the rent to reflect full market rental value retroactively.
el Gamal has a long established history of bad faith when entering leases and not paying rent/taxes.
Given his financial track record, it would be interesting to learn how he qualified for the 'option to buy contract' in the first place.
Legally, ConEd should prevail simply because it is obvious (based on the numbers provided) that el Gamal never paid a single dime of the original lease.
Post a Comment