Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Ground Zero Church To Sue Port Authority

Back on 8/14/10 American Patriots-Defenders of Prosperity posted an article entitled "Liberals Support Muslims - Not Christians"

That article had to do with the New York Port Authority's 9 year delay in reconstructing a church that was destroyed along with the murder of 3,000 people and the destruction of New York City's Twin Towers on 9/11/01 by radical Muslims.

With that posting, some liberals who posted comments on the blog viewed the Port Authority's 9 year delay as an innocent procedural effect of rebuilding after such a devastating attack on America. However, some current revelations may shed some light on the real reasons behind the delay.

Currently, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church is suing the Port Authority to reclaim it's property that the Port Authority illegally took:
As reported in the USA Today:
On Sunday, the eve of St. Nicholas Day, 70 families of the congregation gathered near the site to light candles and pray for a way to rebuild their spiritual home amid the office towers and memorial plaza taking shape. "It's not a political statement. This is our place, and we belong there," says Mark Arey, a priest and director of interfaith relations for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

Before the Port Authority pulled the plug in March 2009, the agency and the church had spent several years working on a plan for the church to be rebuilt a block from its original location. Each side says the other refused to come to terms. The Port Authority says the church wanted too much say in the design of a vehicle screening center underneath the new building. The church says the agency wouldn't finalize the swap of its original property for the new site.
"After nine months of negotiations in which the demands of the Orthodox Church continued to increase over and above what we originally agreed to, we had to make a practical decision," says John Kelly, a Port Authority spokesman.
To work on the vehicle screening center, the Port Authority has begun ripping up the 1,200-square-foot plot where the old church stood, though the agency has not bought the rights from the church to do so.


Why for 9 years has there has been a hold on rebuilding the church?
Why did the Port Authority steal the churches property?

Could it possibly be that the Port Authority is drunk with liberal power or that the Port Authority's Director, Christopher Ward is and Atheist and his goal was to outsmart the Christians and take their property?

As reported by George Demos on GeorgeDemos.com:

During this Christmas season we routinely witness the denigration of Christian values, but perhaps no outrage is greater than the fact that an avowed atheist is blocking the rebuilding of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church at Ground Zero, the only house of worship destroyed on September 11.

Port Authority Director Christopher Ward has engaged in fraudulent conduct, breached the longstanding rebuilding agreement with St. Nicholas, and continued the illegal excavation of Church property, all while cowardly hiding from the press. Perhaps Mr. Ward's hostile attitude towards the Church is best explained by his own words:

"I'm probably the biggest non-believer in terms of religion. If you are not going to believe in God you have to be smarter than the people who do, because you have to answer tougher questions about why you don't."


Christopher Ward, who professes no political party affiliation, was appointed to the position of Port Authority Director by Democrat Governor David Patterson. Combine this with the support that the Ground Zero (GZ) Mosque received from the Democrat Mayor of New York and the Democrat President of the United States (all three have not spoken of any support for rebuilding the GZ church) would suggest to me that these liberals are against this churches reconstruction.

Does politics play a role in the reconstruction of anything concerning GZ? Of course it does. The Daily News Reported on the delays with building the memorial at GZ:
"the Port Authority ignored a secret state report completed a year ago that said its timetable was unrealistic and driven by political concerns".

With all that has been said, it appears to me that the current liberal political power and an apparent atheist in position of authority over construction in New York provide substantiated support my original post.

4 comments:

Mark Adams said...

Not sure where Mr. Ward thinks he is above the Constitutional law of the land, by not at least compensating the Church for the property, as it is clearly stated in 5th amendment... 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation'
Port Authority is a public entity.
Sickening that this liberal atheist has taken up the practice of stealing!

JoeC said...

wow, once again a typical rightwing over reaching conspiracy theory.

Everything i read about the Chruch in the past would indicate that this rant against the PA is taking what is clearly a case of a bureaucracy to new heights in making any claims about religious involvement and influence or lack of religion as is suggested.

The church in the past indicated that it did raise its demands and wanted the taxpayers to increase the amount they would contribute to the rebuilding at the new site. And that a new site and taxpayer money amounts to just compensation. And i put that in rightwing terms to make it easier to understand. Using tax payer money.

I find it revealing that Rightwingers talk about taxpayer money until its time to build a church with it. double standard much.

Mark Adams said...

Yes, using taxpayers money, as a result of a crime committed on the people by a foreign force, that the Federal Government could have prevented and didn't. So now it's time to pony up, as the government failed at its top constitutional requirement to protect the nation.

AdamsPatriot said...

Joe, I would expect nothing less from you with your typical liberal spin: make the Church the evil one!

The church entered into 'negotiations' for their property because the PA wanted to move the church to a different location. So negotiations are a bad thing?

Here is some more info for you:
From DNAinfo.com:

The small church just south of the World Trade Center filed a notice of claim against the Port Authority on Monday, accusing the Port of "arrogance, bad faith and fraudulent conduct" and "shabby and unlawful treatment of the church."

The claim also charges the Port Authority with violating the church’s rights, including the free exercise of religion.

The two sides have been arguing for years over where and how to rebuild the church. They reached a preliminary deal in 2008 but were unable to finalize it. In March 2009, the Port Authority broke off negotiations and seized the church’s parcel to construct an underground parking garage for the World Trade Center site.

Read more: http://www.dnainfo.com/20101207/downtown/church-destroyed-on-911-begins-legal-action-against-port-authority#ixzz17Y8uyckH

Other entities effected by the 9/11 attach have been negoitiating with the PA just as the church has.

But here is the thing, the PA stopped negoitiating and took the church's property and started to build what the PA needed on that property...without concent, without a contract, without compensation to the church.

Now I guess you would be OK with your house being taken by the government without compensation or contract or your concent...and then you find out the head guy who is in charge of this situation was a republican (in otherwords he politically sees things differently than you). Maybe you might sue? Maybe you might scream that this guys screwed you over because your not a republican?

Or would you say that you got what you deserved because you tried to negoitiate?

Tax payer funds? There was a 20 billion federal aid established for properties 'most effected' by the 9/11 attack. The church was totally destroyed by the Twin Towers collapse, therefore they fit that scenario and should receive these funds.

But there are other properties not near GZ that have applied, like the GZ Mosque (5 Mil), other Manahttan properties not near GZ, and some properties in Queens.

The fact that the PA wanted church to move for the PA's needs suggests that the church should be compensated for that conveinence to the PA and the inconveinence of the church!