|
|
| Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied (644780) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 9 of 9 |
||
|
| (646725) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Aug 7 08:05:10 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by jimmymc25 on Sat Aug 7 01:11:36 2010. Correct. Running over protesters is not something a civilized country such as ours does....no matter how obnoxious a protester is.They can be arrested and physically removed, but killing protesters is absurd. |
|
|
| (646753) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Aug 7 09:43:20 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by jimmymc25 on Sat Aug 7 01:11:36 2010. The problem I see here though is that cops may refuse to do that---even if it means that they lose their jobs, as they may take the side of the protestors. Likewise, firefighters may choose not to respond to that address---even if it means that they get fired. |
|
|
| (646766) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Jeffx on Sat Aug 7 11:23:46 2010, in response to Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 10:16:21 2010. I couldn't read through all of the replies, and I don't know if this has been brought up before, but the address of the mosque is, incredibly, another form of the number 9-11. 4+5=9, 4+7=11.Really odd, isn't it???? Probably not a good sign, either. |
|
|
| (646775) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 7 11:54:08 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Jeffx on Sat Aug 7 11:23:46 2010. Yeah, I brought that up in the thread. Almost seems deliberately contrived. |
|
|
| (647314) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Bjc3914 on Sun Aug 8 16:30:46 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 08:25:05 2010. where in the video did he said 9/11 is a local issue??? |
|
|
| (647336) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Aug 8 19:21:30 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Aug 7 09:43:20 2010. Yes, it's just so awful that the people charged with protecting human life would actually choose to protect human life over helping to achieve a madman's insane political objective. How disrespectful. |
|
|
| (647337) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Aug 8 19:21:51 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Aug 7 09:43:20 2010. You'd make a good Nazi. |
|
|
| (647364) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Sun Aug 8 22:56:51 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Aug 7 09:43:20 2010. No... I don't see that at all.They may feel that way but I don't see them acting on those feelings. What I could see though, is some of the construction unions not accepting the work. It's then that problems could happen....such as the hiring of nonunion members then the unions protesting & all that. Anyway...time will show us how this all plays out. Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (647383) | |
Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 9 05:06:36 2010, in response to Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 10:16:21 2010. AFP via The Local
|
|
|
| (647384) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 9 05:09:09 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by ntrainride on Thu Aug 5 11:24:49 2010. this AMoreira81 fella is very much a fooleNo need to insult the late George Carlin like that. |
|
|
| (647390) | |
Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 9 07:47:24 2010, in response to Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 10:16:21 2010. Con Edison owns half the site????http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/half_baked_mosque_8ItuaW0WIByZa5xZ0rCmpJ |
|
|
| (647395) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Aug 9 08:00:58 2010, in response to Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 9 07:47:24 2010. Landmarking was for 45-47 poark place49-51 Park Place, owned by Con Edison were talking two neigbouring sites, not same site. |
|
|
| (647397) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 9 08:03:26 2010, in response to Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Aug 9 08:00:58 2010. Yes, so then what does this have to do with the project? |
|
|
| (647399) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Aug 9 08:16:24 2010, in response to Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 9 08:03:26 2010. nothing other that certain politicians are now grabbing at straws.its two distinct sites, one leased and one bought. |
|
|
| (647401) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Aug 9 09:23:15 2010, in response to Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 9 07:47:24 2010. If all of this is really true (and given that it's in the Post, who know), it would be a nice simple solution. Con Edison says sorry, we're not in the business of generating political controversy, and refuses to sell. That way freedom of religion is unthreatened and still the mosque doesn't get built on that site. |
|
|
| (647403) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 09:29:38 2010, in response to Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 9 07:47:24 2010. It's a master lease from what I have read (that is, a lease on the land); however, the mosque exercised its option to buy in February. Con Ed has not yet completed an appraisal of the property to determine the final selling price, but at least publicly, it has not disputed whether or not Rauf can demolish the property (so long as the payments are made).Where it may get complicated if Rauf decides to go ahead and buy the property (which would take it off the tax rolls) with the makeup of the PSC---it's currently 3-2 Democrat (by law, only 3 members can be a member of one party), and a vote seems likely to fall along party lines (it had swung Republican until a Republican member of the committee resigned; a Democrat replaced her). I thought of posting it last night, but couldn't decide if it warranted its own thread or not. It may not be a roadblock at all even if the sale is rejected. BTW, as for the property that the mosque owns outright, the previous owner died in 2006, and his wife was desperately trying to offload it. The previous landlord was Jewish (Stephen Pomerantz). If at that time, the wife was aware that others wanted it for a war memorial, she may have decided to seek to donate the parcel to the city. |
|
|
| (647404) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 09:32:41 2010, in response to Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AlM on Mon Aug 9 09:23:15 2010. Can that be done if it's a master lease on the land only? That is, Con Edison only owns the land on which it sits, but not the building erected on the site?According to the article, the lease has 61 years left to run. |
|
|
| (647405) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Aug 9 09:36:49 2010, in response to Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 09:32:41 2010. That would depend on the lease. |
|
|
| (647407) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 09:39:41 2010, in response to Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AlM on Mon Aug 9 09:36:49 2010. The way Rauf is talking, I'm presuming it's a master lease on the land. |
|
|
| (647412) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 9 10:44:21 2010, in response to Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 09:32:41 2010. Depends on the lease, and the leaseholder. The building can't be knocked down if someone else owns it. |
|
|
| (647413) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 9 10:46:15 2010, in response to Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 09:29:38 2010. If at that time, the wife was aware that others wanted it for a war memorial, she may have decided to seek to donate the parcel to the city.Please stop with the nonsense about that. |
|
|
| (647416) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 10:52:37 2010, in response to Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 9 10:44:21 2010. But that's the question: Did the Pomerantz family simply have a master lease on the land under 49 Park Place, but own the building? It's unclear.This is the question of: When is a lease not a lease? |
|
|
| (647459) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by vfrt on Mon Aug 9 13:26:28 2010, in response to Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 09:32:41 2010. 45 PARK PLACE PARTNERS LLC is the owner of 45 Park Place accoring to NYC FinancE Dept records:http://nycprop.nyc.gov/nycproperty/statements/asr/jsp/stmtassessasr.jsp?statementId=151841947 |
|
|
| (647468) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 9 13:54:45 2010, in response to Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 9 10:46:15 2010. If you want to upset him, you can remind him of the 45-47 Park Place "numerology".4 + 5 = 9The most innocuous and surprising of coincidences . . . right? |
|
|
| (647504) | |
Re: Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Aug 9 16:34:44 2010, in response to Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place), posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 9 05:06:36 2010. So then you're saying Germany is doing the right thing? |
|
|
| (647535) | |
Re: Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 18:58:43 2010, in response to Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place), posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 9 05:06:36 2010. Different laws...different systems. |
|
|
| (647541) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 19:04:57 2010, in response to Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by vfrt on Mon Aug 9 13:26:28 2010. That's an LLC that's a subsidiary of Soho Equities.As for the Con Ed part---according to the Post, the only think it can take into account in approving or rejecting a sale is: Will the sale affect the ability of the regulated utility to deliver its supply? In this case, the answer is obvious: It will not. If a sale is rejected, the mosque organizers absolutely should sue the PSC, claiming that they exceeded their authority. |
|
|
| (647544) | |
Re: Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place) |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Aug 9 19:12:29 2010, in response to Re: Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place), posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 18:58:43 2010. Really? Why do you believe that now but not for other cases? |
|
|
| (647545) | |
Re: Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 9 19:13:04 2010, in response to Re: Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place), posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 18:58:43 2010. Still rambling about stuff you know nothing about. How did you learn to walk and talk? |
|
|
| (647551) | |
Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 19:31:51 2010, in response to Re: Con Edison Owns Half the Site: Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AlM on Mon Aug 9 09:23:15 2010. The contract doesn't allow that to be an option. The only thing that can stop the sale now is if the appraisal reveals a price that is too high (the appraisal is expected to come in at around $20 million) and Soho Equities balks at the purchase price.As for the PSC, it can only consider whether or not this would affect ConEd's ability to deliver electricity. I would not be surprised if this ownership were a relic going back to the days of Thomas Edison himself. |
|
|
| (647564) | |
Re: Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 9 20:01:08 2010, in response to Re: Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place), posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 18:58:43 2010. What does that have to do with the fact that it is a MOSQUE and COMMUNITY CENTER? Sounds familiar. |
|
|
| (647571) | |
Re: Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Aug 9 20:09:11 2010, in response to Re: Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Aug 9 20:01:08 2010. It was also found to have directly involved in criminal activity. Has this one been found to be involved in the same? |
|
|
| (648080) | |
German Media says "long overdue" (Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Aug 11 12:37:45 2010, in response to Germany: Hamburg shuts down 9/11 hijackers' mosque (was: 45-47 Park Place), posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 9 05:06:36 2010. Der Spiegel does their usual summation of other media outlets opinions on the matter.
|
|
|
| (651554) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Thu Aug 19 22:03:59 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 21:51:04 2010. NAAH, just get the WAY-BAK Machine and send them all to Germany 1943. |
|
|
| (697386) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Nov 19 04:22:37 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by LuchAAA on Wed Aug 4 06:26:47 2010. wow....talk about showing one's true colors |
|
|
| (701668) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Nov 29 23:13:50 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by LuchAAA on Wed Aug 4 06:26:47 2010. He also advocated cutting the heads off members the congress who didn't vote the way he thought that they should. Very sad, indeed. |
|
|
| (701699) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Nov 30 01:07:23 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by LuchAAA on Wed Aug 4 06:26:47 2010. Man if one of us said this it would be WW3 around here but since it's a righty it's acceptible.your pal, Fred |
|
|
|
Page 9 of 9 |
||