08-22-2010, 04:43 PM
the cordoba group have assets of about 20'000 and are onlt part of a consortium theat have very little cash at hand. though it's called cordoba house it is not owned solely by the cordoba group. soho properties own part of the site and the site lease for the other part. cordoba group is just a really small investor so why you keep touting their name i have no idea. one of the reasons people are against the mosque is in fact the name "cordoba house" as that is a derogotory name where christians are concerned after muslims overran the christians at certian places in spain.
you ask or say they have planning permission and because of that it's a done deal. this says it's no where near a done deal and could be tied up in red tape and court proceedings till the cows come home;
[b]On August 3, 2010, however, New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9–0 against granting landmark status and historic protection to the building. That cleared the way for it to be razed, and the new Cordoba House to be built in its place. The Commission's members had been appointed by Mayor Bloomberg, a supporter of the new structure.
The following day, Timothy Brown, a firefighter who survived 9/11, filed a suit in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan asking the court to nullify the Commission's decision.[ He praised 45–47 Park Place, quoting the Commission's own description of it as "a fine example of the Italian Renaissance-inspired palazzi" that flourished in the mid-1800s in the area.[98] The suit was filed on his behalf by the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative public interest firm.
one of the stepping stones your non owning cordoba group who don't actually own but only have a small investment in the project face is the same as soho properties face. there is a hue and cry for them to say where the cash (100 mil dollars) is coming from.
some are sceptical that it's probably coming from terror organisations. and countries who have axes to grind against the west. while bloomberg and some others say we don't need to know there intellect has to be questioned on the matter. if indeed it does come about that the mosque is funded by terrorist organisations and states they'll look rather silly. to simply say no one needs to know seems a little perturbing.
the ex hamas leader has been seen to speak on behalf of the soho group on cnn. i saw him doing it. my eye sight is bad but i yet to be deemed blind.
the american gov can build buildings. it is not and has never been against any statutes fr them not to do so. once the building is done they simply say there you are new york, it's yours. they build a building not a church. just a shell building are not and have never been on their own deemed church, mosque or synagogue. before that can happen the ground has to be consecrated. something the gov can't do. people build churches, workmen build building. if this was not the case churches, mosques etc would never get planning permission?
inventing spurious but non the less usuable reasons.
bu·reauc·ra·cy (by-rkr-s)
n. pl. bu·reauc·ra·cies
1.
a. Administration of a government chiefly through bureaus or departments staffed with nonelected officials.
b. The departments and their officials as a group: promised to reorganize the federal bureaucracy.
2.
a. Management or administration marked by hierarchical authority among numerous offices and by fixed procedures: The new department head did not know much about bureaucracy.
b. The administrative structure of a large or complex organization: a midlevel manager in a corporate bureaucracy.
3. An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action: innovative ideas that get bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy.
all it takes is three separate people to complain about the noise to have a court order placed on them. all it takes is for three or more residents to complain that they are causing more congestion that before. all it takes is an odd lawsuit, one illegality in the contracts, surveys etc, of which they'll be dozens.
anyway, as i said. i'll wait and see.
i think their should be a multi religious center at ground zero. (at ground zero)
but i doubt cordoba house will become a mosque and if it does i bet it doesn't stay one for long.
thanks for the debate.
btw we're always always sober in the serious discussion forum. otherwise why have it
you ask or say they have planning permission and because of that it's a done deal. this says it's no where near a done deal and could be tied up in red tape and court proceedings till the cows come home;
[b]On August 3, 2010, however, New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9–0 against granting landmark status and historic protection to the building. That cleared the way for it to be razed, and the new Cordoba House to be built in its place. The Commission's members had been appointed by Mayor Bloomberg, a supporter of the new structure.
The following day, Timothy Brown, a firefighter who survived 9/11, filed a suit in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan asking the court to nullify the Commission's decision.[ He praised 45–47 Park Place, quoting the Commission's own description of it as "a fine example of the Italian Renaissance-inspired palazzi" that flourished in the mid-1800s in the area.[98] The suit was filed on his behalf by the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative public interest firm.
one of the stepping stones your non owning cordoba group who don't actually own but only have a small investment in the project face is the same as soho properties face. there is a hue and cry for them to say where the cash (100 mil dollars) is coming from.
some are sceptical that it's probably coming from terror organisations. and countries who have axes to grind against the west. while bloomberg and some others say we don't need to know there intellect has to be questioned on the matter. if indeed it does come about that the mosque is funded by terrorist organisations and states they'll look rather silly. to simply say no one needs to know seems a little perturbing.
the ex hamas leader has been seen to speak on behalf of the soho group on cnn. i saw him doing it. my eye sight is bad but i yet to be deemed blind.
the american gov can build buildings. it is not and has never been against any statutes fr them not to do so. once the building is done they simply say there you are new york, it's yours. they build a building not a church. just a shell building are not and have never been on their own deemed church, mosque or synagogue. before that can happen the ground has to be consecrated. something the gov can't do. people build churches, workmen build building. if this was not the case churches, mosques etc would never get planning permission?
inventing spurious but non the less usuable reasons.
bu·reauc·ra·cy (by-rkr-s)
n. pl. bu·reauc·ra·cies
1.
a. Administration of a government chiefly through bureaus or departments staffed with nonelected officials.
b. The departments and their officials as a group: promised to reorganize the federal bureaucracy.
2.
a. Management or administration marked by hierarchical authority among numerous offices and by fixed procedures: The new department head did not know much about bureaucracy.
b. The administrative structure of a large or complex organization: a midlevel manager in a corporate bureaucracy.
3. An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action: innovative ideas that get bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy.
all it takes is three separate people to complain about the noise to have a court order placed on them. all it takes is for three or more residents to complain that they are causing more congestion that before. all it takes is an odd lawsuit, one illegality in the contracts, surveys etc, of which they'll be dozens.
anyway, as i said. i'll wait and see.
i think their should be a multi religious center at ground zero. (at ground zero)
but i doubt cordoba house will become a mosque and if it does i bet it doesn't stay one for long.
thanks for the debate.
btw we're always always sober in the serious discussion forum. otherwise why have it