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.
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 ...
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.
Con Ed just made itself a huge target.
I’m sorry, under what principle of law is a landlord allowed to raise someone’s rent retroactively?
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.
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...?
The Saudis will pay. $1.7 mil is like taking a couple pennies from their pocket.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You go back to the time of the error. Not unusual.
In an electrifying moment, events have unfolded which clearly demonstrate how grounded American Business can be, when paying fealty to profit.
Shocking.
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.
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.
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.
We’ll see.
Though that was my 1st thought as well.
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!
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.