Article

2011-10-16 Home Front: WoT

Con Ed says it will evict Ground Zero mosque unless developer pays $1.7 million in back rent

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2011-10-16 10:08|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 Oh please.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2011-10-16 10:49|| 2011-10-16 10:49|| Front Page Top

#2 A retroactive rent increase? In NYC that is probably normal, but anywhere else it is begging for litigation.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-10-16 11:23|| 2011-10-16 11:23|| Front Page Top

#3
No rent control?

Posted by tipover 2011-10-16 13:03|| 2011-10-16 13:03|| Front Page Top

#4 Probably not for commercial property, tipover.

Posted by Barbara 2011-10-16 13:18|| 2011-10-16 13:18|| Front Page Top

#5 I bet the Mooslimbs can come with that, when their Saudi backers get tired of exploiting the legal system. And the media.

Posted by Bobby 2011-10-16 14:31|| 2011-10-16 14:31|| Front Page Top

#6 I'm hoping Con Ed wins this battle of ousting the deadbeats.

Posted by JohnQC 2011-10-16 15:54|| 2011-10-16 15:54|| Front Page Top

#7 I'd love to see them booted, but...retroactive rent increases? WTF?

Posted by Frank G 2011-10-16 16:00|| 2011-10-16 16:00|| Front Page Top

#8 I'd love to see them booted, but...retroactive rent increases? WTF?

Leaseholder changed when Burlington sold their interest to the Ground Zero mosque developers. The old lease was no longer valid from that point on.

Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-10-16 17:24|| 2011-10-16 17:24|| Front Page Top

#9 Baloney. Standing leases would've been assigned to the new leaseholder. Unless some clause in the contract (or NY law) authorizes retroactive rent increases, ConEd is asking for litigation.

So for Park51, basically it would come down to (1) probability of success if they litigate it (there might be a binding arbitration clause - that could go either way), and (2) overall, is paying it or disputing it likely to cost less.

Hope they ~~don't~~ get a good Jewish lawyer. :)

Posted by RandomJD 2011-10-16 17:59|| 2011-10-16 17:59|| Front Page Top

#10 JD, the standing lease was NOT transferred. The Ground Zero mosque owners admit they owe nearly $900K. In addition, they paid $700,000 for the privilege of renegotiating the lease. The point of contention is the lease rate that is dependent on the market value of the property. ConEd says $11M, GZM says half that. Other sources say the value is $10-20M.

Even worse for GZM, they have not been paying even what they themselves say they owe. They have been paying only the old $2,750/month rate. $881,519 would be 35 months of ($25875 - $2750).

What I don't understand is why GZM agreed to back date any rate increase by 1 year. The GZM controllers bought the Burlington building in July 2009, not July 2008.

Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-10-16 20:59|| 2011-10-16 20:59|| Front Page Top

23:21 JosephMendiola
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:10 JosephMendiola
22:46 Skidmark
22:36 Fred
22:26 Water Modem
22:17 twobyfour
21:52 Chomosing Hupimp6046
21:46 Sofa-Soldier
21:41 JosephMendiola
21:40 skunkyglins****
21:39 Jeque Hupairong2828
21:29 JosephMendiola
21:19 Eohippus Phater7165
21:14 Steve White
21:13 Pappy
21:11 JosephMendiola
21:06 Pappy
21:05 tu3031
21:05 JosephMendiola
21:03 Jeque Hupairong2828
20:59 Eohippus Phater7165
20:58 Procopius2k
20:10 Free Radical