| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Con Ed says it will evict Ground Zero mosque unless developer pays $1.7 million in back rent |
| 2011-10-16 |
| Pay up or get out. Con Ed has given the Ground Zero mosque an ultimatum: Pay the $1.7 million you owe in back rent, or we'll terminate your lease and take back our property. Con Ed and mosque developer Park51 have an unusual, uneasy alliance, sharing ownership of a site slated to be one of the most controversial projects in city history. The utility owns a former substation on the western half of the property, at 51 Park Place, and the mosque developers own a five-story building on the eastern half. The buildings were connected years ago and used to house a Burlington Coat Factory store. Park51, which leases the substation from Con Ed, wants the two buildings so it can knock both down and build a $100 million, 15-story community center. But the plan hit a major obstacle in August when Con Ed raised the rent from $2,750 a month, a rate set in 1972, to $47,437 a month, retroactive to July 31, 2008, The Post has learned. When the mosque failed to fork over the $1.7 million, the utility fired off a letter demanding the money by Oct. 4 and threatening to evict. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2011-10-16 17:59 |
| #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 |
| #7 I'd love to see them booted, but...retroactive rent increases? WTF? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-10-16 16:00 |
| #6 I'm hoping Con Ed wins this battle of ousting the deadbeats. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-10-16 15:54 |
| #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 |
| #4 Probably not for commercial property, tipover. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2011-10-16 13:18 |
| #3 No rent control? |
| Posted by: tipover 2011-10-16 13:03 |
| #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 |
| #1 Oh please. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2011-10-16 10:49 |