Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Con Ed says it will evict Ground Zero mosque unless developer pays $1.7 million in back rent
NY POST ^ | Oct. 16, 2011 | By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN

Posted on 10/16/2011 6:25:56 AM PDT by COUNTrecount

Pay up or get out.

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.

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. SPLIT: Developer Sharif El-Gamal (inset) owns the right half of this complex, all of which he plans to raze for a mosque and community center, but leases the left from Con Ed, which hiked the rent.

Park51, which leases the substation from Con Ed, wants the two buildings so it can knock both down and build a $100 million, 15-story community center.

But the plan hit a major obstacle in August when Con Ed raised the rent from $2,750 a month, a rate set in 1972, to $47,437 a month, retroactive to July 31, 2008, The Post has learned.

GROUND ZERO MOSQUE DOESN'T HAVE A PAYER

When the mosque failed to fork over the $1.7 million, the utility fired off a letter demanding the money by Oct. 4 and threatening to evict.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: groundzeromosque; newyork; newyorkcity

SPLIT: Developer Sharif El-Gamal (inset) owns the right half of this complex, all of which he plans to raze for a mosque and community center, but leases the left from Con Ed, which hiked the rent.

1 posted on 10/16/2011 6:25:58 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

Con Ed just made itself a huge target.


2 posted on 10/16/2011 6:30:49 AM PDT by edpc (Former Normalcy Bias Victim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

I’m sorry, under what principle of law is a landlord allowed to raise someone’s rent retroactively?


3 posted on 10/16/2011 6:32:28 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

Priceless. I would suppose that ConEd is one of the EEEViLLL corporations that the Fleabaggers are protesting in NY and elsewhere. I’ll give you 2 to 1 odds that they will come out in support of the mosque.


4 posted on 10/16/2011 6:33:23 AM PDT by RobertClark (It's better to look goofy with a rifle, than civilized with an exit wound.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

Maybe they could have a yard sale and raise needed money?
Im sure the community minded folks would pitch right in and help a neighbor in need...?


5 posted on 10/16/2011 6:34:49 AM PDT by Leep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

The Saudis will pay. $1.7 mil is like taking a couple pennies from their pocket.


6 posted on 10/16/2011 6:47:30 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
I’m sorry, under what principle of law is a landlord allowed to raise someone’s rent retroactively?

From the article:

Gamal’s group bought the building at 45-47 Park Place in 2009 for $4.8 million and, at the same time, paid $700,000 for the lease at the substation... After conflicting appraisals of the property by Gamal and Con Ed, it seems both sides came to an agreement this summer.

It sounds like the lease agreement was based on the property value at the time, which was underestimated and then agreed upon this summer after two years of lawyer/representative back and forth.
7 posted on 10/16/2011 6:47:30 AM PDT by Renderofveils (My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music. - Nabokov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jdege; COUNTrecount
I’m sorry, under what principle of law is a landlord allowed to raise someone’s rent retroactively?

Contracts themselves are enforced under principles of law. "Principles of law" have nothing at all to say about the content of a contract. For instance, whose rent do you know has remained the same since 1972? What "principle of law" allows that ... apart from the fact that "a contract is a contract?"

There may be provisions in the contract as written that allows ConEd to do what its doing and some patriot is sticking it to the muzzies if ways Bloomberg refused to do.

You're not "sorry." Pissed maybe, but not sorry. Looks like like your "sorry" place of "worship" may not be built any time soon -- if at all.

Kudos to ConEd.


8 posted on 10/16/2011 6:52:45 AM PDT by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jdege; COUNTrecount
I’m sorry, under what principle of law is a landlord allowed to raise someone’s rent retroactively?

Contracts themselves are enforced under principles of law. "Principles of law" have nothing at all to say about the content of a contract. For instance, whose rent do you know has remained the same since 1972? What "principle of law" allows that ... apart from the fact that "a contract is a contract?"

There may be provisions in the contract as written that allows ConEd to do what its doing and some patriot is sticking it to the muzzies if ways Bloomberg refused to do.

You're not "sorry." Pissed maybe, but not sorry. Looks like like your "sorry" place of "worship" may not be built any time soon -- if at all.

Kudos to ConEd.


9 posted on 10/16/2011 6:52:56 AM PDT by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jdege

In the case of dual ownership, there are likely contracts about waht will occur between the 2 parties to that contract.

I suspect that non-payment of a lower rent & possibly other actions triggers a punishment clause which raised the rent substantially & also triggered a retroactive clause in the contract.

IF the Muslim guy didn’t like the contract, he shouldn’t have signed it.


10 posted on 10/16/2011 6:57:54 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Court papers show that the appraised price for the Con Ed property is $10.7 million. But Gamal contends Con Ed’s math was faulty when it calculated the rent, saying it owes only $881,519 in back rent and should have to pay $25,875 a month going forward.

Apparently there is an agreement between the mosque and the landlord that back rent is owed based upon an appraisal. The argument is in the appraised amount.

Personally I hope the pitch the lessor out on his arse.

11 posted on 10/16/2011 7:01:01 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

I’ve never been a supporter of the mosque, and it seems quite reasonable, to me, that the rents for a property be higher now than they were in 1972. If I were on the board of Con Ed, I’d be asking just who within the company managed the property, how it was they let it go so long without a rent adjustment.

But it still seems odd, to me, that a contract would allow rent increases to be imposed retroactively.


12 posted on 10/16/2011 7:03:31 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jdege

You go back to the time of the error. Not unusual.


13 posted on 10/16/2011 7:10:09 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

In an electrifying moment, events have unfolded which clearly demonstrate how grounded American Business can be, when paying fealty to profit.

Shocking.


14 posted on 10/16/2011 7:11:49 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege

Do what? LOL

Here is the salient part of the article:
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.

Since when is a business not within its rights to demand payment for all monies due at any time?

These guys are good Americans and let the Moslems run up a tab that is so large they may not be able to meet their obligation and ConEd will just have to eat the charge.

I am glad they did this.


15 posted on 10/16/2011 7:15:13 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

IMHO the Ground Zero Mosque will never be built. It’s far too radioactive an issue and has long since gone too national for its supporters. Even Mayor Nanny Bloomberg complains bitterly that the rest of America should just butt out this is a local New York isue blah-blah-blah.

I hope Con Ed presses forward. And if the muzzies start growling and making threats, they should receive phone calls with the sound of a racking shotgun on the other end and then step out their front doors and slip ‘n trip in pig grease.


16 posted on 10/16/2011 7:17:21 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("Deport all Muslims. Nuke Mecca now. Death to Islam means freedom for all mankind.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jdege

It has nothing to do with a “principle of law” at all. It’s almost certainly something that is written into the terms of the contract between the landlord and the tenant.


17 posted on 10/16/2011 7:20:07 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
They will have a cheque for the amount tomorrow from someone in Saudi Arabia. You don't think they will allow a blow to Infidel be removed by something as simple as a few dollars? Wishful thinking!
18 posted on 10/16/2011 7:31:23 AM PDT by TsonicTsunami08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TsonicTsunami08

We’ll see.

Though that was my 1st thought as well.


19 posted on 10/16/2011 7:35:03 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/no-federal-funds-for-ground-zero-mosque/
NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR GROUND ZERO MOSQUE
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
08.29.2011

The ground zero mosque, called Park 51, has applied for a $5 million grant of federal funds from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. The Corporation, set up to rebuild lower Manhattan after 9-11 is actively considering the grant request. Imagine! A federal entity set up to rebuild lower Manhattan giving tax money to a mosque designed to celebrate the attacks that killed 3,000 Americans!

The ground zero mosque will offer courses in Shariah Law and will doubtless spawn hundreds of new terrorists eager to pick up where the 9-11 hijackers left off.

Officially, the federal funds would not go to religious activities, but to “fund social service programs for all the residents of Lower Manhattan such as domestic violence prevention, Arabic and other foreign language classes, programs and services for homeless veterans, two multi-cultural art exhibits and immigration services,” according to its grant application.

he sponsors of the mosque have no business rubbing the noses of the victims’ families in the dirt by building the mosque right next to the site of 9-11. But there is especially no justification for using our tax money to make it possible.

Please CLICK HERE to sign an online petition to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to urge them to refuse the grant request! Keep some sense of proportion and decency!


20 posted on 10/16/2011 7:41:52 AM PDT by COUNTrecount (Barry...above his poi grade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Thanks COUNTrecount.

Additional:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2793499/posts


21 posted on 10/16/2011 7:44:12 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

El-Gamal means The Camel in Arabic.


22 posted on 10/16/2011 8:14:07 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount; jdege

I have negotiated many lease agreements for our various businesses and escalating rents are part of the deal.

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-operations/commercial-real-estate/commercial-real-estate-lease-negotiate.html


23 posted on 10/16/2011 8:17:29 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: edpc

“Con Ed just made itself a huge target.”

Yeppers. Lawfare is about to commence against ConEd.


24 posted on 10/16/2011 8:19:14 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

The symbol of Islam

The crescent of the embrace memorial for Flight 93

Symbol of the Euro currency


It's all just a big coincidence!!!
25 posted on 10/16/2011 8:45:25 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

So you’re thought is it’s not that Con Ed unilaterally increased the rent, but that the two parties negotiated a rent schedule, and that Con Ed has simply been failing to collect it, since 2008?

In that case, the retroactive increase would be quite justified.

I notice, from the story, that the mosque isn’t arguing the fact of the increase, but only the amount.


26 posted on 10/16/2011 10:34:14 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
"The Saudis will pay. $1.7 mil is like taking a couple pennies from their pocket. "

Yup. When the king takes his annual 12 week vacation to southern Spain the cost is $6.0 million a day.

Meanwhile, Americas middle-class feeds how many starving Muslim babies a day?

27 posted on 10/16/2011 11:02:35 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson