After receiving information about the dilapidated interior of the house at 803 Mechanic, Emporia City Commissioners voted this evening to allow Emporia Presbyterian Church to tear it down.
After learning it would cost more than $58,000 to fix the house, commissioners agreed there was no other feasible and prudent alternative to demolition.
The church is considering buying the house and then razing it to use the land for green space. The house is divided into five apartments, four of which are currently rented. Since one apartment was just rented, the church will have to wait a year before proceeding.
The house is located in the neighborhood of three buildings on the National Historical Register. Because of the historical integrity of the neighborhood the state denied the church’s request to demolish the home. The church appealed to the city commission, who had previously tabled the matter because of lack of information about the house’s condition.
Jack Taylor, interim zoning enforcement officer, said city code service and fire marshal staff went to inspect the house Sept. 8. Though they found problems, there was only one item that had to be fixed immediately to bring the property into compliance, a situation involving waste water being drained to an open sump pit.
While that’s the one thing that has to be fixed legally, Kent Heermann, a member of the church’s governing board, pointed out many more flaws were found.
Read the full story in the Thursday edition of The Emporia Gazette.
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
This sounds like the wrecking crew. I like Dean Martin's wrecking crew better.
September 16, 2010 at 12:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
uummmm, ummmm,
Reddog,
How long ago was it that your family tore down the Spady building on Commercial street? Didn't it have some low cost rentals in it? And is it now green, (maybe brown) space?
September 16, 2010 at 6:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
And who allowed all those problems to exist for years and years while they collected rent on those apartments? Did they ever tell those people, "Hey nevermind, no rent due, the place is in bad shape."
That place did not get that way overnight.
Just another case of greedy landlords and substandard housing in Emporia, only recently the subject of a huge firestorm of opinion in our fair city.
September 16, 2010 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, I see that Mr. Kent Heerman and company got their way, as I thought they would, with the help of their friends and colleagues on the City Commission and likely the help of others.
You see it does pay, to have friends in positions of governmental power and elsewhere.
It is my belief that the " Righteous Church " board conviced everyone that this space was needed for a " Church " parking lot or for some sort of Church use. And the only way they could obtain the " tax free " , space cheaply was to convince the local government that it would be turned into " green space " !
I have a question for everyone. Does anyone know what the term " Green Space " refers to ?
If not look up what the definition of " Green Space " refers to. And then make up your own minds if Emporia needs anymore " Green Space " and who exactly will be responsible for maintaining the satisfactory maintenance, up keep , appearance and cost of maintaining such a " Green Space " . Will it be Kent Heerman, Steve Sauder, the " Righteous Church Flock " or will it be paid for by Emporias taxpayers and what about the destruction of the home of theseveral persons are living there, that may not be able to afford " higher " cost rent, does the " Righteous Flock of the Church care that these people may become homeless ? Somehow, I seriously doubt it !
And whose house/home will be next on the " Destroy " list of the " Demagogues " ?
Well, I guess I have provided Steve Sauder with enouogh fodder for his weekly radio " crying " session ! But remember Mr. Sauder this is just my opinion, which I am entitled to and am also entitled to the right of freedom of " Speech/Expression " by the first amendment of the constitution of the United States ! No matter how hard you try to suppress that " Right " for you and your friends practice of " Demagoguery " ! Yes, that is right ... in my opinion anyone who seeks to impose their will on all others is nothing more than a " Demagogue " and as a matter of fact a " Hypocritical Demagogue " at worst and just a " Demagogue " at best, but still a " Demagogue ", just the same .
And " Demagoguery " is alive and well in Emporia and Lyon county as well as the world and has been growing now for some time and it knows no boundaries or class distinctions . As a matter of fact it goes on and is practiced, everyday in our own elected governments and elections of all kinds and by everyone . Yes even I, myself practice it sometimes .
continued
September 16, 2010 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
continued:
For those forum posters or readers who do not know what the terms " Demagogue " or " Demagoguery " refers to. The following is the definition for both terms.
demagogue
dem·a·gogue [ démmə gòg ] or dem·a·gog [ démmə gòg ]
noun (plural dem·a·gogues) (plural dem·a·gogs)
Definition:
1. emotive dictator: a political leader who gains power by appealing to people's emotions, instincts, and prejudices in a way that is considered manipulative and dangerous
2. popular leader in ancient times: in ancient times, a popular leader who represented the ordinary people
verb (past and past participle dem·a·gogued, present participle dem·a·gogu·ing, 3rd person present singular dem·a·gogues) (past dem·a·goged, present participle dem·a·gog·ing, 3rd person present singular dem·a·gogs)
Definition:
1. intransitive verb engage in demagoguery: to act like a demagogue in gaining power by appealing to people's emotions and prejudices
2. transitive and intransitive verb elicit emotive bias on issues: to elicit people's emotional and prejudicial biases on an issue
[Mid-17th century. < Greek dēmagōgos "leader of the people" < agōgos "leader" < agein "lead"]
It saddens me to no end, to see what Emporia and Lyon County is becomming.
Not a place of progress, compassion for everyone, what is right or the right thing to do, for everyone !
Rather a place of certain persons wants, needs and dictates ... no matter whether it is the right thing to do for the sake of everyone, fair, shows compassion for your fellow citizen and neighbor or whether everyone will be able to survive the cost of whatever the wants and needs of those few that " Want or Need " whatever it is they " THINK " they " Want or Need " !
So, there you have it Mr. Sauder, enough fodder for you to cry about on your weely " Demagogue" radio program.
Have a nice day and a nice cry. LOL
create,
I like you wonder who owns the building.
And if it were owned by someone with wealth or influence or power, would the same thing be happening or even discussed ?
September 16, 2010 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Oh, and just as an after thought .
Will any of the sales tax extension monies be used to aquire this so called, " Green Space " ?
September 16, 2010 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
"Legitimate" media types always hope the rest of us forget that Freedom of the Press is limited to those that own one. I guess the same thing applies to radio pundits. The rest of us are only allowed to participate at their good will. If you don't believe that watch how quick they pull the plug on someone who is making them uncomfortable.
September 16, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
biscuit,
Does that mean I am in danger of having my " plug pulled " ?
Oh, well !
September 16, 2010 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I hope not methusla,,,I hope not.
September 16, 2010 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"Does that mean I am in danger of having my ' plug pulled ' ?"
Did someone say death panels?
Dune?
September 16, 2010 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
giggles (anonymous) says...
Was the current owner even asked if they wanted to sell?
Also, we must all remember that standards are relative. If there was only one thing that had to be fixed to be in compliance, then so be it. Low cost housing really cannot feasibly look like a Taj Mahal. It might not be everyone's ideals of "proper" housing, but if it meets legal standards then I guess what others want should be moot.
But back to my original question, I just don't see that if the owner wasn't looking to sell then why do they have the right to ask to demolish it? Especially with people living there! I think that sometimes we allow people too much control over others, and as a Christian church, that should make them ashamed of their actions, IMO. Are they going to help those people relocate? I would like to know more of the entire "plan".
September 16, 2010 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
giggles,
There has been a for sale sign on that property for quite some time now, I think the owners want out. Low income from cheap rent, along with more maintenance and higher property taxes don't make for a good income retrurn.
Add that to all the newer rentals that have been built in just the last couple of years and a lower enrollment at the college and you see why there are more older units for rent in Emporia.
September 16, 2010 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
giggles,
Also the pastor told the commission last night that the tenants would remain until their lease was up and the church would do what it could to help relocate the renters.
September 16, 2010 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
marko (anonymous) says...
perhaps the church can put it on the Holiday Open House tour so that people can have a look at the place for themselves... waste water draining into an 'open sump pit' sounds nasty.
September 16, 2010 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oops (anonymous) says...
I don't see what the big deal was about. That house has been for sale for at least 6 months, maybe longer. They are going to let the tenants finish their lease. The house would cost more than it is worth to repair. Another home that would eventually just crumble away will be gone. If someone like myself would have bought it and decided to tear it down nobody would be up in arms. Heck nobody would have even known about it if the uppity historical society wouldn't have let them do it in the first place without having to jump through hoops. I think the historical society really gets to overstep their bounds sometimes. They are kind of like a Homeowners association only with more power.
Also, they said (might have been on the radio, my memory is bad sometimes) that green space cannot be used for parking. We will see.
September 16, 2010 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Marko -
I don't know the exact problem, or the owner for that matter. However, I think you are jumping to conclusions. I doubt the toilet is draining into the sump like you are thinking. More than likely, the washing machine is draining its waste water into the sump. This is a very common occurrence in owner occupied homes as well. Just because it's a rental property does not mean the owner is a slumlord and greedy or will cut major corners when fixing something.
Like I said though, I don't know the what the problem was, the house or the owner.
September 16, 2010 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I can't believe in this country someone wants to buy something that is for sale and do with it what they please! I am outraged! Why? Why? Is this happening?!!?! Someone has to stop this insanity!! Stop property owner rights at all costs!! Anyone who thinks they can buy something and do with it what they please in this country better think again!!!
(please take note that this post is sarcasm)
September 16, 2010 at 1:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Oh seriously I though you were being serious....ly folks....Get it?
September 16, 2010 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
marko (anonymous) says...
Pingeon, I am sure that is what it was, laundry facilities provided by the nice owner, Never never would a nice owner put sewage into an open sump pit in rental housing.
September 16, 2010 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Here is another comment that may be an " Unplugging Offence " , in the eyes of some, er, more like an " Unplugging question or questions ", perhaps.
I would still like to know where the funds will come from for the purchase of the property, since one of the church board members, happens to be the head of or one of the " heads' " of the RDA as well as other prominent, influential citizens of Emporia and connected to at least one of the City Commissioners, by way of the RDA ?
And remember the RDA and its members have been " anointed " as the sole " authority " as to what is " Good " and what is " Bad " for all the citizens of Emporia and the surrounding area !
Will the property be purchased at the present appraised, fair market value or will it be purchased as " condemned " property for much less than current, appraised, fair market value ?
Will the " Church " and its " Flock " be listed as the legal owners of the so called " Green Space " ?
There are basically two definitions of " Green Space, that I can find. These definitions are as follows.
1. Main Entry: green space
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a plot of undeveloped land separating or surrounding areas of intensive residential or industrial use that is maintained for recreational enjoyment
2. green space, financial definition,
A natural area in or around a development,intended to provide buffer,noise control, recreational use, and/or wildlife refuge, all in order to enhance the quality of life in and around the development.
Now, my next obvious question would be, exactly which definition of " Green Space " does the Church intend to use this so called " Green Space " or allow this so called " Green Space " to be used for ?
Again I ask, who is going to be financially and labor responsible for the maintenance, upkeep, asthetics and cost of such maintenance, upkeep, asthetics, etc., etc., the Church, its Flock, The City and City taxpayers, who ?
I also ask, again, whose or what property or home is next on the list to be " condemned ", " judged unworthy" or " destroyed " as not measuring up to the " Supreme Judges " of what or who is worthy of living or being in Emporia ?
Again these are questions and comments are just my opinions .
September 16, 2010 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Predestination, that house was maybe predestined to come down.
September 16, 2010 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
giggles (anonymous) says...
Sorry guys, I didn't know it was for sale. Just some information that would be helpful in the article. I guess if they are going to let the people rent until the leases are up and help them relocate then go ahead and tear it down. If they buy it for what it is selling for, then let them do what ever they choose with it. Their Christian principles should guide them to what is best.
September 16, 2010 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
So the city says only one thing in the house legally needs to be corrected. At the same time the same city declares that all the things wrong with the house, requiring 58-thousand dollars in repair bills, makes the house so unlivable that it justifies razing it even though it is in a historical preservation zone. Excuse me...but what does this say about the uselessness of the city's minimum housing codes.
If the city deems that the house is unfit to repair enough for human habitation...why are humans still living there, and why does only one problem legally have to be repaired to allow them to live there?
September 16, 2010 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
marko,
We had a broken drain line once so the water from the kitchen sink had to be diverted to the basement drain until it could be repaired. That was considered waste water. If it was raw sewage, I'm sure the tenants who live there and listed the items they viewed as being problematic in the last article would likely have mentioned that. Don'tcha think?
"Tenants said while the house is old and has flaws, they feel it’s safe and a decent low rent place to live."
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...
September 16, 2010 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
My, that is one tall molehill.
September 16, 2010 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Marko -
I clearly stated I didn't know what the problem actually was. I suspected that a washing machine was most likely the problem. I used to do deliveries for Sears and there are A LOT of homes that have their washing machine draining into the sump.
As far as the "nice owner" providing clothes washing facilities, places either have them or they don't. Some don't and that's why laundry mats are able to make money.
People commenting on the church letting the tenants stay there until the end of the lease, they have no choice. Under KS law, if you buy a property with a tenant currently living there you have to let them finish out their lease. You can choose to not let them renew their lease at the end of its term, but as long as they pay rent, they stay. If there is no signed lease existing, that's a different story...
September 16, 2010 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
biscuit,
Very good observation, comment and question !
Since I evidently believe there is a conspiracy among some in Emporia, to make Emporia " Over " to their particular " Likeing " ,,, it maybe that the one minimum housing code violation, that will supposedly cost $58,000 to bring the building into code, is the first step in getting the building condemned, so Mr. Heerman, his church/flock and friends may purchase the property at less than current appraised value !
When you belong to a certain group of interconnected people and their friends, things are done in a much different way !
And such is the way things have, are and will be done in Emporia and Lyon County . Even the Justice System works differently for different people .
September 16, 2010 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
radioGaGa (anonymous) says...
I am tired of these "people" that have no rights trying to do stuff in this country! Ever hear of separation of church and state? It's a real thing "people"! All are rights comes from the state and if you belong to a church you don't have rights because you are separate from the state! Who let them buy any land to begin with? Man it makes me so mad when they try to have church and rights! You can't have both! You better choose! I completely agree with methusla and biscuitboy, this tragedy of justice should be eliminated!
a moderate Democrat
September 16, 2010 at 11:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
He who is without sin can cast the first stone. Sure must be a lot of sinless people who contribute to these forums.
September 17, 2010 at 12:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Please note sports fans.
None of my post on this topic have had anything critical to say about the church and its role in this affair. All of my concerns have been about the broader issues of the availability of low cost housing and the effectiveness of city housing codes.
Feel free to criticize my post if you must....but please try to make sure you understand what I said before you jump into the frying pan.
September 17, 2010 at 3:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Radio GaGa
Give me a break. You write that senseless thing you posted at 11:25 p.m., and then tag "moderate Democrat" on the end of it. Anybody dumb enough to accept that is too dumb to know how to read. I will not comment on the intelligence of anybody dumb enough to try it.
You better go back and repeat "Dirty Tricks 101.
If you are a 'moderate' anything I'm Santa Claus.
September 17, 2010 at 3:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Here goes, and I will wait for opposing views and opinions.
1. This is a case of the free enterprise system thrown haywire by intrusive government intervention.
The property was for sale and had a buyer but was within a "historical district".
Some paper pusher at the historical society denied the demolition, only because that is their policy, (deny every application).
This forced the church to appeal that ruling to the city, which could overturn it.
More hoops, and in the end the city approves it.
Opinions have been offered and given, (a lot of them personal and I feel not too relevant), just because it involved a church and the names of some of the people involved.
Private Property Rights were involved in this situation.
The people who are upset with this deal should be upset at the historical society for forcing tax dollars to be used in settling this mess, (hours and expenses of city staff and commission and the payroll of historical staff).
It is called the free enterprise system and people should not be surprised that it goes astray when a government entity becomes involved in it.
God, isn't this country great, when we have the right to voice our opinions freely?
September 17, 2010 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Steve, I believe you're right about the historical society paper pushing tactics. I've had problems with them myself. They have all the big ideas as long as you're the one spending the money.
This is always worth listening to in its entirety.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWwUJH...
September 17, 2010 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Steve,
You are 100% correct. The buyer should have the right to buy the property that was for sale and do with it what they please(within the law). They should have told the historical society that they were just going to restore the land to original condition. Grass,trees,shrubs,and other greenery is the historically accurate condition for that piece of land.
Of course if this had been "Joe Secular" trying to do this we would hear nary a peep from those that are up in arms about someone wanting to buy something and do with it what they please.
If I was one of the tenants and wanted to stay there I would have tried to buy it myself and then used the money collected from the other tenants to make the mortgage payment but that's just me. Then we wouldn't even be discussing this.
September 17, 2010 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I also agree. My concern has never had anything to do with the church's right or desire to buy the property. I could care less if they use it for Green space, a parking lot, or a clothes line for members to dry their laundry on.
I don't know why that has become so hard for a couple of people to understand.
September 17, 2010 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
seriously, get serious will you. Think about what you just suggested. Do you honestly think someone who must pay lower rent is going to be able to qualify for a mortgage loan?
Don't get me wrong, I like your idea, but kiddo, it's pie-in-the-sky unrealistic.
This is just a case of the have's versus the have nots. AGAIN!
This didn't just have to do with that church, so don't put anymore paint on that picture. Greedy landlords collecting rent for substandard housing are what started all this.
Oh yeah, seriously, would you like to co-sign the mortgage loan for one of those tenants?
September 17, 2010 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
create....:-)
September 17, 2010 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
biscuit.........MG (muchas gracias).
September 17, 2010 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I don't know the situations of the tenants. It may very well be that one or more could qualify for a loan to buy the house. Perhaps the bank(Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Tammy Faye, or maybe Bernie Mac?) would consider the possible income of the property in their decision making to loan or not. I don't know. I do know that before I bought my house I was a renter so I know it is possible to go from being a renter to being a home owner(even for an uneducated scumbag factory worker from the South side like myself).
As far as all the angst about this not being about the fact that this is a church trying to do this, give me a break. Just look at methusla's September 16, 2010 at 1:41 p.m post. The way he quotes words like "church" "flock" "good" "bad", if you don't see some hostility in that post then you are purposely trying to not see it. Plus there is the fact that many of you that are opposed to this legal acquisition of property have made it abundantly clear in past discussions that you don't like churchiness. During the smoking ban debates you were for property owners rights which is what this is about. Why the change of heart with this issue? Hmmm? This is a simple case of people wanting to buy property that is for sale and do with it what they please, property owner rights. Yet many who are supposedly for property owner rights are against this. Based on the evidence you can see how it looks, right?
September 17, 2010 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Yes....I certainly can seriouslyfolks.....lol
September 17, 2010 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks.
So you have a problem with what methusla said. Fine. Based on what I know about you I can understand and accept that. So take it up with methusla.
Then you launch into how some of us in the past have shown that we don't like "churchiness".....whatever that means......as a way of proving that we can say nothing about anything that has any connection to a church without being controlled by our biases.
Sounds to me like you are letting your biases about us do a pretty good job of controlling you. "Based on the evidence you can see how it looks, right?"
September 17, 2010 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Just trying to use past evidences to make sense of current motivations that seem rather inconsistent with past evidences. See?
September 17, 2010 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Yes I do see....kinda.....
But there is more that one current motivation at work here. One is an anti-churchiness that is apparent in some post and questions of property rights.. But another is a concern about the continuing loss of available low income housing. An even more important one is the sliding scale of livability apparently applied by the city to such housing. A sliding scale that appears to be more or less strict depending on who is benefiting.
The city apparently had little or no interest in how livable this house was until a buyer (the church) needed it to get interested so the buyer could get permission to tear it down. That's my gripe and it has nothing to do with the church at all other than the fact that they happened to be the buyer. .
September 17, 2010 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks,
As I have stated before, I have seen how some churches and its flock treat some people, especially my mother and father .
And due to that experience, I will admit, I am not too keen on Churches or Religion in general . And that is why I studied " Religions of the World " while I was attending college and managed to learn a bit about different religions, beliefs and faiths.
So, yes I do have a certain hostility toward Churches, their flock and Religion in general.
I will never ever forget the way my mother and father were treated by the Church we were all baptized in . And have not been to a Church, since .
But, let me also say I do not have any hostility toward you or anyone . Only when I see or perceive hostility directed to me, then that is a different story entirely .
It just seems rather " coincidental " that someone who just happens to be a church board member and also happens to be one of high standing in the RDA organization, that seems to have the soul " power " to decide what is good or bad for everyone of Emporias citizens is so dead set on aquiring certain property and causing a possible hardship for people .
I guess, this incident reminded me of the incident with my mother and father.
Although I did not have to explain my comments or feelings. I felt that I should , as everyone has a reason for the way they feel about something.
September 17, 2010 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
If the buyer (the church or anybody else for that matter) had not intended to tear it down, but had intended to continue renting it out, the city would have had no concern about its live-ability. The new owner could have continued to rent out what the city has now deemed sub-standard housing without any problems just like the old owner had done.
September 17, 2010 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"The new owner could have...."
Yeah, they could have done things differently but they want to restore the land to it's historic condition, that being "green space". House is for sale....they have the means to by the house....... after they have the house it will belong to them ........... they should be allowed to do with their property what they want. They want to restore it to it's historic "roots". I still say that it seems that some are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
y over reacting to this and I can't help but think that there is more behind the hostility than the most noble of reasons being made for said hostility.
September 17, 2010 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
If the church wants to buy something I say great! Pay the sales tax. Oh, wait! Church is exempt from sales tax in Kansas.
If the church wants to own property I say great! Pay the property tax. Oh, wait! Church is exempt from property tax in Kansas.
If the church wants to own a rental home I say great! That isn't a dedicated place of worship so it is taxable even if church owns it. But wait! They are going to tear it down and make a tax exempt church back yard.
I wish I had a paragraph written into the Kansas State Constitution that exempted me from paying property tax and assessments. I could buy up all kinds of crappy looking houses that poor people live in and "clean" them up tax free too.
September 17, 2010 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
I'm all for someone who doesn't like their neighbor's trashy looks putting their money where their mouth is. That's cool! Buy it and make it look the way you want it to look. Free market at it's finest.
The one thing that irritated me about this story (other than the tax exempt part) is that the prospective buyer has no balls. Instead of running all over the state begging for permission, they should have just bought the place and torched it..er...I meant "cleaned" it up. jmo lol
September 17, 2010 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Sorry seriously, but all this Freddie Mac stuff is what got this country in a ton of financial trouble to begin with. All those foreclosures weren't made on people who could afford to buy their houses. Ya wanna go back to all that?
You put many of the people on this thread into one box -- the anti-religion box. You have a problem with me? Take it up with me. Don't generalize. It's a bad form of argument.
Like methusla, I too have had problems with two different sects of Christianity. The one I was born into -- Catholicism, and the one which mistreated my daughter and scared her half to death -- Baptists. I have reasons!
On another note, I'd like to find out how the history people got involved with this situation to begin with.
September 17, 2010 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
BERNIE MAC!
i JUST WET MYSELF.
September 17, 2010 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I know that Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, Mac the Knife, and all those "dudes" are a huge part of what got us where we are today and I know their origins and their connection to the party that is currently in control of or government. That's why I mentioned them.
Like I told biscuitboy, I'm just using what I know of y'all from these forums and trying to figure out what is soooooooo scandalous about this situation that has so many feathers ruffled.
September 17, 2010 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
create, I believe the house in question is in the same block as another house that is listed as an Historical Preservation site. Such a designation means plans for other properties near that site must be submitted for approval to the "history people".The idea is to keep somebody from putting up a skateboard park right next door to WAW's house. But there are provisions for that to be overruled by the city. I think something along that line is what happened here, but that's just the way I remember it from reading the news accounts. I could be wrong.....
But as to the sliding scale of how these things are applied. My guess is a planned skateboard park next to the WAW home would not be approved nearly as quickly, no matter how much money the developer had to do it with, or how many rights he had to develop property he owned as he saw fit.
None of these laws about property rights are absolute. You can't build a cattle truck wash station or a mud wrestling girlie club next to a grade school. And as bar owners now know you can't even decide what customers can and can not do in your business if the government decides they don't want you to. And none of this has anything to do with religion unless you are bound and determined to make it have something to do with religion
September 17, 2010 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
seriously,
Well, as I said, I did not have to explain my feelings or motives for those feelings, but felt that I should !
Now, if you wish to be hostile yourself and read something else into it, then that is your " small " problem.
I have not opened up about my " true " feelings toward religion, church or how some church going people, can be the most, biased, uncompassionate and hypocritical people in the world !
And what I stated as being the reason for my hostility toward, church, some church people and religion is the real and true reason why I am hostile and do not really care to discuss church, religion or such matters . And why, when I see a Church or anyone who belongs to a Church start forcing their doctrine onto or bullying people into or out of something that should be strictly " personal " issues, irritates me to no end.
As, I said if you wish to read more into it that is your problem.
Unless you are a practicing Psychiatrist or Psychologist, do not presume to psychoanalyze me and tell me I have other or deeper problems.
Thank you. Have a nice day .
September 17, 2010 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I am absolutely done with this particular discussion.
I will leave these forums for a while, as I need to get out to the cemetary and repair my fathers and mothers head stone.
Have a nice day everyone.
September 17, 2010 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Dona eis requiem, methusla. Grant them (your parents) rest. You have a good day too.
Thanks for the info, biscuit.
September 17, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
The last I heard the buyer was now wavering on buying the property because of the high cost of asbestos removal. If they back out will the city then be fine with having its citizens living in what it has deemed unfit housing?
Just curious.
September 17, 2010 at 6:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
Hey Meth,I'll pray for you.
September 17, 2010 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
marko (anonymous) says...
maybe someone will buy it to build a mosque
September 17, 2010 at 7:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
busybody (anonymous) says...
I think if the church has that kind of money - they could put it to better use than buying houses to tear down. Maybe adopt some needy children, give to the salvation army food bank, - you know - charitable things. Just saying....
September 17, 2010 at 9:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
create, gratias tibi ( thank you ) !
Justthefacts, thank you, also.
September 17, 2010 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lcountyvictim (anonymous) says...
I'll be watching to see if the county appraiser lowers the current tax value from it's current $62,800 to the land value of $4,140. Because the city commissioners agreed there isn't enough value to leave the structure standing, they seemed to have created an open door for the current owner to dispute, and possibly drastically, lower what they currently pay in taxes. Brilliant, commisioners.
September 17, 2010 at 11:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )