Ground Zero Mosque facing possible eviction.
I didn’t know this but the mosque developer that owns the property and the mosque that is know as the “Ground Zero Mosque” don’t own the entire piece of property at 51 Park Place. Con Ed owns the western half of the building and the developer owns the eastern half. Con Ed has been leasing their half to the mosque at a rate of $2,750 per month (which has been the rate since 1972). Con Ed decided to raise the rent to better reflect today’s prices and in August they sent a notice to the mosque that they would now have to pay $47,437 per month….retroactive to July 2008. This means that the mosque now owes Con Ed $1.7 million in back rent and they want that money asap or the lease will be terminated and….bye bye mosque.
Of course…the mosque has filed a law suit and has a temporary court order to block the eviction.
Why hasn’t this gotten more media attention? (never mind…I know the answer to that.)
Go Con Ed Go!
© 2011, Bridget. All rights reserved.
Also Recommended:
- SICKENING: Ground Zero Victory Mosque builders apply for $5 million NYC rebuilding grant to create their sick Cordoba-style conquest monument at Ground Zero
- ARTISTS NEEDED: Help storyboard a Ground Zero Victory Mosque commercial for Carl Paladino
- MUST WATCH: Pat Condell on stopping the Islamic Victory Mosque at Ground Zero
- Intriguing: Is the Saudi King working behind the scenes to move the Ground Zero Victory Mosque to somewhere in the Village?
- New York Ground Report: Ground Zero Victory Mosque
Latest Buzz:
Help HillBuzz by Shopping Amazon
"Bee" Advised!
I look forward to your comments. Please follow these simple guidelines:
- Please do not complain about your comment not yet showing up
- Stay on topic of the article ("This is OT, but..." = bad!)
- I will STING if you troll, spam, bait, swear or attack someone
The Muslims can always blame the Jew-Controlled ConEd…!
/must I?
Best news of the week.
I don't see how you can back date and increase like that.
I wish I had paid more attention. I read somewhere a long while ago that con ed owned the property and there was talk they would possibly do something like this. Was it on michelle malkin? But i don’t see how they could go retro either, unless they had given them notice at that time. I’m also not a lawyer so my opinion is moot here.
Apparently one of the developers, a Mr. Gamal, agrees the rent can be raised and ConEd can go back to 2008 and collect retroactively. This sentence is very interesting.
"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."
If they acknowledge that retroactive rent CAN be collected, then it wil be interesting to see what actual numbers are decided on in the end. I'm hoping it is the $1.7 million.
$1.7 million? No problem. Just wait for one of the muslim brotherhood groups to step in and pay this; someone from saudi – prince al-waleed bin talal, a sheik from qatar. $1.7 million is nothing to those guys. [I refuse to use capital letters for anyone or any country that follows islam, just to show them / it the lack of respect deserved.]
I have to believe that given the media attention this place has had that Con Ed would not ask for retroactive pay unless they were on sure legal footing. I personally think it's fabulous! (but will not hold my breath thinking that the developers will ever have to really pay that)
I never would have thought I'd ever say this, but, Go Con Ed!!!