Quote:
|
I know what I said I know. Just because you don't know what I do, does not mean I don't know it. Just because I did not tell you, does not mean I don't know it. I already said in previous posts that I did not and do not post all that I know, but do often post questions or things to think about, not just propaganda, or conclusions.
|
That's "refudiation" if I have ever read it! (I think)
I have posted the facts of the situation regarding why building permits for St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in NYC have not been granted.
It is now eminently clear that St. Nicholas was not seeking to rebuild on their existing site. Rather, they were seeking a huge increase of the size of their facility on a site owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Port Authority is an inter-state agency, legally separate from the City of New York.
Thee new St. Nicholas facility was predicated upon swapping their 1200 sq ft. existing site for a Port Authority site seven times larger, and getting a contribution of at least $20 million in public money from the Port Authority.
An agreement between the parties existed in 2008, but fell through because of increasing demands by the church.
Thus, there are no finalized plans. Building permits can not be issued until site plans are approved.
The church still has the right to build on their existing property. They have not asked to do so.
St. Nicholas Church is comfortable enough with a NY Times article about the proposed rebuild that they link to it from the front page of their own website. That article says that solving the problems of their new site are indicative of the kind of problems that permeate the rebuilding of the Ground Zero area.
About St. Nicholas not getting a building permit, KSagal posted,
" This is a function of political correctness not only running amok, but being very selective in doing so."
Despite the above information, and having submitted not the slightest shred of evidence to support his own position, KSagal refuses to even acknowledge the facts of the situation, let alone reconsider his claim.
Readers are therefore left to reach their own conclusions regarding why KSagal would have made such a statement in the first place, and why, in the face of facts clearly proving otherwise, he would cling to such a prejudicial perspective.