Al - that point isn't supported by what you posted.  The article clearly states more than once that their original plan was to buy and demolish the properties.  Nowhere does it state that they planned to rehab the existing property but were put off by the additional costs from HD.
 
I think you are mis-stating the case completely here.  Now--if those properties continue to deteriorate, and are not rehabbed for some useful institutional use in the next few years, come back and let us know.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [UC] Still clinging tenaciously... ?

In a message dated 11/16/2004 9:00:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Al-

All of us who are planning to demolish our homes will have to keep this in mind.

David

Sorry, you missed the point. It was that the Church couldn't justify the additional costs associated with keeping the existingbuildings.
 
Al

Reply via email to