Purchase of St. Philip's school Site
On July 20th, City Council, after emerging from a closed session not listed on the meeting's agenda, by voice resolution and without public discussion, authorized the signing by the City of the agreement to purchase for $2.6 million the St. Philip's School site and structure from St. Thomas Catholic Church. While keeping taxpayers in the dark, negotiations for this purchase took place during the past 3 years between representation from the City and the church. This is an amazing story considering the facts, and prompts the question, "What are our 7 Council members thinking?"
1.Let's look at the facts, first at the legal language of the two deeds. The Mayor said the church is "giving up ownership of the site that could be used for religious purposes forever." ("The Beachcomber News" 8/19/05) That's correct. However, he forgot to mention something important. Here it is. The deed is valid "provided however, that the premises are to be used solely for educational and/or religious purposes. If, at any time, the said premises ever cease to be used for such educational and/or religious purposes then title to the said premises shall revert to the City of Brigantine." Note that the word "shall" is used. Evidently, the church can't sell the property to anyone, including the City. If the church surrenders the property, as it is now proposing to do, that means it's not using it for the allowed purposes and the City takes it back, for nothing. Now, according to the newspapers the church wants to continue using the building for church activities without having any financial obligations as the owner of the site. How can the church lose? There will be no more expenses for the property, there will be money for renovating and enlarging the church, and there will be continued use of the former school. Council calls this a win-win situation. Now, there's a "spin" on a bad and apparently illegal deal for Brigantine taxpayers, with tax revenues being spent unnecessarily in violation of the deed restriction. Has the church considered a rental-fee arrangement for the use of the former school after the property reverts free to the City?
Aside from the primary and crucial legal issue, let's look at other ones.
2. "City officials called the purchase a win-win situation since not only will recreation programs have room to expand, but the deal also would help preserve the longstanding church." ("The Press of Atlantic City" - 7/21/05) The future location and condition of St. Thomas Church is not the business of government and the expenditure of tax revenues is not to be based in any respect on the status of any church or in the interest of any church, without exception. Again, it appears the Council needs some legal advice.
3. Council talks of housing recreation programs, art shows, plays and cultural events in the former school building. Has it forgotten the far-superior facilities we already have at our elementary and middle schools, facilities about which it has boasted since their construction? Use them, and more effectively, if the community wants more. Council says it wants another building for particular uses as a youth center and for our older population. But, our public school facilities now serve both these groups. And, the numbers are dropping for both these segments of our population.
4. Council has said it has no idea what costs would be involved in using this former school. We'd need to hire a consultant. Another building means more maintenance costs, more operating expenses, more salaries. How could Council consider such a purchase without knowing something about costs in addtion to the purchase price? The private sector wouldn't be so careless about costs.
5. While reading the minutes of a meeting in 1959 of Brigantine's governing body, we noted that 1 of the 3 Commissioners abstained from voting to approve the purchase from the City of this property by the church. Why? He stated that he was a member of St. Thomas Church Parish and therefore wouldn't vote on a matter affecting the church. How different that is from Council's vote on 7/20/05! No one abstained even though the same conflict as in 1959 exists for several members of Council. They should explain why they didn't abstain at the next Council meeting.
By the way, we can't read the letter of 3/16/59 from St. Thomas offering $9,000 for this property, the offer on which the above Commissioners voted, because it is missing from the City's archives.
Council has been less than open and forthright in its dealings on this property. As such, it gives the impression of having something to hide. Does it? Certainly, something is not right here. Thorough scrutiny is in order. Our comments are intended to throw light on a deal which appears questionable. We will continue to keep Brigantine taxpayers informed.
Instead of increasing the burden on taxpayers, Council should be considering ways to reduce municipal expenditures and our taxes.
1.Let's look at the facts, first at the legal language of the two deeds. The Mayor said the church is "giving up ownership of the site that could be used for religious purposes forever." ("The Beachcomber News" 8/19/05) That's correct. However, he forgot to mention something important. Here it is. The deed is valid "provided however, that the premises are to be used solely for educational and/or religious purposes. If, at any time, the said premises ever cease to be used for such educational and/or religious purposes then title to the said premises shall revert to the City of Brigantine." Note that the word "shall" is used. Evidently, the church can't sell the property to anyone, including the City. If the church surrenders the property, as it is now proposing to do, that means it's not using it for the allowed purposes and the City takes it back, for nothing. Now, according to the newspapers the church wants to continue using the building for church activities without having any financial obligations as the owner of the site. How can the church lose? There will be no more expenses for the property, there will be money for renovating and enlarging the church, and there will be continued use of the former school. Council calls this a win-win situation. Now, there's a "spin" on a bad and apparently illegal deal for Brigantine taxpayers, with tax revenues being spent unnecessarily in violation of the deed restriction. Has the church considered a rental-fee arrangement for the use of the former school after the property reverts free to the City?
Aside from the primary and crucial legal issue, let's look at other ones.
2. "City officials called the purchase a win-win situation since not only will recreation programs have room to expand, but the deal also would help preserve the longstanding church." ("The Press of Atlantic City" - 7/21/05) The future location and condition of St. Thomas Church is not the business of government and the expenditure of tax revenues is not to be based in any respect on the status of any church or in the interest of any church, without exception. Again, it appears the Council needs some legal advice.
3. Council talks of housing recreation programs, art shows, plays and cultural events in the former school building. Has it forgotten the far-superior facilities we already have at our elementary and middle schools, facilities about which it has boasted since their construction? Use them, and more effectively, if the community wants more. Council says it wants another building for particular uses as a youth center and for our older population. But, our public school facilities now serve both these groups. And, the numbers are dropping for both these segments of our population.
4. Council has said it has no idea what costs would be involved in using this former school. We'd need to hire a consultant. Another building means more maintenance costs, more operating expenses, more salaries. How could Council consider such a purchase without knowing something about costs in addtion to the purchase price? The private sector wouldn't be so careless about costs.
5. While reading the minutes of a meeting in 1959 of Brigantine's governing body, we noted that 1 of the 3 Commissioners abstained from voting to approve the purchase from the City of this property by the church. Why? He stated that he was a member of St. Thomas Church Parish and therefore wouldn't vote on a matter affecting the church. How different that is from Council's vote on 7/20/05! No one abstained even though the same conflict as in 1959 exists for several members of Council. They should explain why they didn't abstain at the next Council meeting.
By the way, we can't read the letter of 3/16/59 from St. Thomas offering $9,000 for this property, the offer on which the above Commissioners voted, because it is missing from the City's archives.
Council has been less than open and forthright in its dealings on this property. As such, it gives the impression of having something to hide. Does it? Certainly, something is not right here. Thorough scrutiny is in order. Our comments are intended to throw light on a deal which appears questionable. We will continue to keep Brigantine taxpayers informed.
Instead of increasing the burden on taxpayers, Council should be considering ways to reduce municipal expenditures and our taxes.
posted by Brigantine\Resident at 9/12/2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home