Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 112
Thanks Tree61Thanks

Thread: City Transfers Land Surrounding Cross to Private Foundation to Bring Closure

  1. #11
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    33,641
    Thanks
    16770

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    I thought they just made it private.
    Then, wherein would be the harm in the city announcing the sale, so that all of the people in the town would know that the cross is not being displayed on public land? I also wonder if this means that the city will now be able to collect property taxers on the land, since it is now private.
    Thanks from Dangermouse

  2. #12
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    53,572
    Thanks
    19043

    From
    america
    I LIKE it!

    Good move, Neosho City Council!

    Good move!

  3. #13
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    40,811
    Thanks
    25458

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    This maneuver isn't unprecedented; many townships seeking to avoid religious symbol / public land conflicts have resolved it by selling the land to private owners. It's not an "in-your-face-FFRF" moment; it's a standard practice that the FFRF has seen a dozen times, and they're quite satisfied with the outcome.

    However - the land sale must be public, in accordance with the law. And the land cannot be sold below fair value, unless other private individuals are permitted to leverage the same land values.

  4. #14
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    53,572
    Thanks
    19043

    From
    america
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    This maneuver isn't unprecedented; many townships seeking to avoid religious symbol / public land conflicts have resolved it by selling the land to private owners. It's not an "in-your-face-FFRF" moment; it's a standard practice that the FFRF has seen a dozen times, and they're quite satisfied with the outcome.

    However - the land sale must be public, in accordance with the law. And the land cannot be sold below fair value, unless other private individuals are permitted to leverage the same land values.
    To the bold: Thanks, I was wondering about that very thing.

  5. #15
    Inside Your Heads syrenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    13,301
    Thanks
    6570

    From
    the sadness of my soul
    This same battle was fought for years in SF over the Mt davidson cross. This is no small cross. It sits on top of a mountain and is a predominate structure which can be seen from just about every part of the city. It was a major part of the SF "skyline" before there was a skyline....

    the same solution was used with the cross. The property around the base of the cross was sold to a religious origination with the agreement they only light it one time a year.

  6. #16
    Inside Your Heads syrenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    13,301
    Thanks
    6570

    From
    the sadness of my soul
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    City Transfers Land Surrounding Cross to Private Foundation to Bring Closure to Complaint From Atheist Group


    NEOSHO, Mo. — A prominent professing atheist organization has expressed its skepticism after a Missouri city recently transferred a section of land surrounding an 80-year-old cross display to a private foundation in an effort to assuage the organization’s concerns about government endorsement of Christianity.
    “If the intent is to save the religious display, the purpose of the transfer is religious and could be considered a legally problematic sham remedy,” wrote the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) to the City of Neosho on Friday.
    As previously reported, FFRF first sent a letter in May to Mayor Ben Baker, stating that it had been informed by a complainant that a cross figure lies on the side of a hill in Big Spring Park, which is public property. It asserted that the figure violates the U.S. Constitution because its public location sends the message that the government endorses Christianity.

    “The government’s permanent display of a Latin cross on public land is unconstitutional,” the correspondence asserted. “The display of this patently religious symbol on public property confers government endorsement of Christianity, a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause.”

    It requested that the cross be removed from the park or moved to private property.
    However, once residents of Neosho heard about FFRF’s effort, many urged officials not to cave to the Church-State separation group. The cross has been in place since 1930 without complaint.
    “In fact, all day today I got texts and messages and e-mails and calls saying, ‘Stand strong. Keep the cross,’ and so that’s what we’re going to do,” Baker told Action 12 News.

    City council members agreed that steps should be taken to preserve the cross at the park.
    “It is the position of the city council that the correspondence forwarded by this organization was deficient in identifying authoritative case law within the Eighth Circuit, and is further of the opinion that, in fact, controlling case law would support the continued presence of the cross within the park,” the council said in a statement.
    “Therefore, it is the unanimous opinion of the city council that the City of Neosho will not remove the cross or take any other actions which in any way compromises the long standing history of our city,” it declared.
    On Wednesday, Steven Hays, an attorney for the City of Neosho, wrote a letter to FFRF to advise that officials had transferred the land surrounding the cross figure to a private organization in order to avoid a lengthy and expensive court battle.
    “Effective this date, the City of Neosho has transferred the ownership of the land at issue and contains the cross which had been the motivating factor of your foundation contacting the City of Neosho,” he wrote.
    “Following the findings of Salazar v. Buono, the City of Neosho has transferred the subject property to the Save Our Heritage Foundation, a private foundation, utilizing a fee simple conveyance with a conservation easement as prescribed by the laws of the state of Missouri,” Hays explained. “It is the position of the City of Neosho that the actions it has taken brings this matter to a close.”https://christiannews.net/2017/09/11...atheist-group/

    This is the best remedy I have ever heard of to settle a case like this with the FFRF. They file a complaint of a cross being on public property, then transfer ownership to the Heritage Foundation so its no longer public property. Problem solved
    The FFRF is besides themselves, they starting to give orders that the property has to be sold at fair value. Why does the city have to take orders from the FFRF? The city doesn't, they are just trying to bully the city into thinking they will still get sued. Ignore them, all government entities should donate their property that has religious displays to the Heritage foundation, so the FFRF is powerless. This is a great idea


    link?

  7. #17
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    49,990
    Thanks
    2739

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Giant cross park transferred by Neosho to avoid legal battle

    And I don't care if the majority of residents of the city want it to remain. That doesn't make it any more constitutional. The city needs to make it clear to anyone who sees the cross that the government has nothing to do with it.
    Would it satisfy you to put a sign on the property that says, " This land with the cross on it doesn't belong to the city".

  8. #18
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    49,990
    Thanks
    2739

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by syrenn View Post
    link?
    Its there, one paragraph back from bottom

  9. #19
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    49,990
    Thanks
    2739

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    Why do you want the government of all the people to endorse just the religion of part of the people?
    I don't want the government to endorse religion. I want to people of the city to enjoy the cross like they have since 1930. Transfering the property to the Heritage Foundation solves that problem. The people doesn't care who owns the land, so its a win win situation. I guess the FFRF is upset because they didn't get to bully one more city like they have for years. Let them try to sue the city now, they don't own the property anymore

  10. #20
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    49,990
    Thanks
    2739

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by NiteGuy View Post
    Yes, it is legal, and it's great that the cross will continue to be displayed on (now) private property.

    But I don't see how this puts the FFRF "in it's place". As far as I can determine, the FFRF has never had a problem with religious displays on private property, only on public property. And transferring or selling public property to a private entity, whether it is the Heritage Foundation, or any other private group or individual is the perfect solution, and one which I am sure the FFRF is more than okay with. Their only concern are religious displays on public property, be they Christian crosses, or prayers and other religious displays in schools, etc.

    Anyway, this current solution would seem to save both sides the time, money and expertise required to deal with a lawsuit. So again, I don't see how this puts anyone, including the FFRF in their place.

    Sounds more like a win-win to me.
    I agree its a win win situation, but the FFRF is trying to dictate to the city how they should sell the land for a fair value. They didn't sell the land, they transferred it to the Heritage Foundation. I don't know how the FFRF can dictate what a city should do with the property as long as they don't own the property that is being questioned.

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 9th August 2014, 04:13 AM
  2. Atheist group demands Rhode Island city remove cross from atop war memorial
    By aboutenough in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 292
    Last Post: 14th May 2012, 08:51 PM
  3. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 28th May 2010, 02:10 PM
  4. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 25th March 2010, 06:26 PM
  5. Wal-Mart Subsidizes Money Transfers for Illegal Aliens
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 3rd August 2007, 10:32 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed