Sorry. This church has gotten FREE PARKING for 60 years, using the lot of an adjacent mall. Fair enough, it makes sense -- hardly anyone shopping on Sunday mornings, so they let the church use it. But now, the mall property was sold to some other company, a realty company. A realty company in the business of making money, which includes leveraging its properties for income. Maintaining a parking lot is a business expense for the malls owners. The church is also. first and foremost, a money-making business, raking in money every week. And it has been getting free parking on someone elses charitable dime. But it is still a business, and if they wish to access the new owners lot, they are being asked for $380,000 in order to access that lot. Same lot, but new owner, and the new owner is entitled to charge a reasonable fee toward the maintenance of the lot. Gosh, so the new owner isnt so charitable. Was the church giving the previous owner a receipt for donation-in-kind for use of the lot? The church is a business and will have to come up with the money or go somewhere else and mooch off of some other community. It is THEIR problem, not the publics problem to solve, and not the entire Meyerland communitys problem to solve, if not everyone attends that church. The church has plenty enough money, so they should pay the fee or build their own dang parking lot. The headline calls it a dispute. Its not a dispute. New owner, new terms, take it or leave it. Just because you got free parking before does not entitle you to expect free parking from the new owners.
Posted on: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 03:28:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015