City January 8, 2010 7:38 AM

Support the Preservation of a Historic Church Building

Support the Preservation of a Historic Church Building
You are invited to join me in a reception at Lafayette Church this Sunday from 11:30-1:30, where we will give a presentation outlining our efforts to preserve our building through creative re-use.

Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church was added to the national register of historic places this year, and if we are successful in our plans for re-use, the building will continue to be an integral part of the Elmwood Village for years to come.  We will accomplish this by converting part of our building to market-rate apartments.

Currently, the congregation is struggling to use the building at a level that meets the high costs of maintaining a historic structure.  We have a plan, however, to re-structure the use of the building so that current uses (Loaves and Fishes dining room, the Right Place for Kids, and a number of community groups, as well as the congregation) can continue in a space that suits them, all while preserving this architecturally and culturally significant structure.

On Sunday, join us for some light refreshments as we detail how we can open the building to even greater use, maintain current occupants, and fund the ongoing preservation of the structure.  We will be happy to answer questions, show you the structure, and invite you to support what we believe is a pioneering vision for historic church re-use. 
View image

Comments

Leave a comment

Rev. Drew,

Are you looking to subdivide the main sanctuary area into apartments?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Not the sanctuary--the other parts of the building.

replied to nick
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

While I am for preservation of the building and applaud the church for their humanitarian endeavors I do believe this conversion should not be paid for, not even partly paid for, with tax money. While churches enjoy a tax-free state they have accumulated prime properties and kept them off the tax roles. While not paying taxes they have enjoyed the services that our taxes pay for. If the congregation cannot afford the building I suggest selling it and moving into a smaller building before taxpayer money goes into a church. Separation of church and state and all that. Where is Mother church when you need her?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yes, this would put more property on the tax rolls.

Selling the building and moving would probably also be a good choice, but the new owner would also need some help to develop it.

I am a pretty persuasive guy, but I do not think I can convince the congregation to sell the place where they were baptized, married, etc.

replied to Allentwnguy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

That is exactly how I feel about highways

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

@ nick - The sanctuary will remain exactly that, and the church will carry on its work and its mission. I hope the new residents like organ music.

@STEEL - ditto

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment


I don't think "separation of church and state" applies here. It may sound nice, but it's a red herring.

And I'm getting really tired of the "tax" argument. I agree with Steel. We pay taxes that go to support all kinds of things we may not benefit from or agree with.

We pay for all this highway road construction with tax money, even though it has done great harm to our cities and to the environment.

Here we have someone that wants to find a way to preserve a part of the community, and we don't want to support this with taxes? Of course we should.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Who will be designing these apartments? A local architect?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It's one thing to allow churches to be exempt from the tax rolls to ensure they have a place to worship. It is far different, however, to allow churches to be exempt from paying taxes on land or buildings they are developing for commercial purposes. We all benefit from highways, whether we own a car or not. Most of the produce and other products you buy at the supermarket were brought to you via the highway system. And people who don't drive themselves often ride buses, use taxis, and get rides from their friends who do own cars. Those people who own cars, besides paying the taxed that everybody pays, also pay hefty fees to the government such as registration, inspecion, excise taxes, title fees, etc.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I do believe that once the conversion is completed the apartments are rented they will go on the tax rolls.

replied to NBuffguy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I think you could make an argument that highways do not benefit everyone. Even so a better way to pay for them would be via pay as you go.

replied to NBuffguy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment


We all benefit from highways, perhaps. But don't we also all benefit when a part of the city is preserved?

Also, I think allentwnguy is right. A non-profit will most likely have to pay taxes on rental property it develops.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

maybe i am missing something. what tax dollars are being used for this project?

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

If this property is being held for development purposes, it should be taxed.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Leave a comment