WT to start selling Brooklyn assets

by Dogpatch 22 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DJ

  I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. It seems that the wt is suing someone because of the asbestos, is that right? If so, whom? They cannot sell the wt building w/o either having the asbestos removed or disclosing it's existence which would bring the market value way down.

  Could the wt simply be in need of cash because of the pedophilia lawsuits? If so, this wouldn't be the property to sell because of the asbestos costs involved, right? I also am confused about where the printing is actually done. Is it in that building? Is that Bethel? As you can see I am confused.....

  Randy, I checked out your net soup scroller thing today and I had no idea that they owned so much property! Mind boggling...
• 

  manon

  I can't wait to learn who the new landlord/owners will be hopefully they'll restore and preserve the integrity of this historical neighborhood as it stands the tower are a complete eyesore. I predict condominiums/lofts with a phenomenal view of Manhattan/East River as opposed to office space.
• 

  DJ

  Manon,

  You are scaring me.....lol.....you sound like you would actually move in there...?? Gives me the creeps! I vote for tearing down the whole building and putting a big memorial there for all of the deaths that the wt has caused.
• 

  Pleasuredome

  do you think the WTS will distribute the $14,000,000 among the poor and needy in the congs around the world?
• 

  rocketman

  If they do sell, not one dime will go to help any needy among their ranks, that you can bet on.
• 

  Gerard

  It seems they want to move into the farm. But the NY goverment is tired of having the WT dodge taxes:

  As to the second question, section 420-a of the RPTL provides an exemption from taxation and certain special ad valorem levies and special assessments to real property owned by a nonprofit organization organized or conducted for one or more of the statutorily specified purposes (e.g., religious, educational) which property is used exclusively for exempt purposes. In certain circumstances, farm property owned and used by such a nonprofit organization has been determined to be entitled to such exemption (e.g., People ex rel. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Inc. v. Haring, 8 N.Y.2d 350, 170 N.E.2d 677, 207 N.Y.S.2d 673 (1960); Rudolf Steiner Educational and Farming Association, Inc. v. Brennan, 65 A.D.2d 868, 410 N.Y.S.2d 404 (3d Dept., 1978), app. den., 46 N.Y.2d 709, 387 N.E.2d 624, 414 N.Y.S.2d 1027 (1979)). For purposes of this opinion, we assume that the nonprofit organization is entitled to exempt status on its farm property.

  The answer to the second question, then, depends on the organization's use of its new property. If it continues to farm the property for at least the balance of the statutory period following the conveyance, there will be no conversion and no conversion payment. Presumably, the organization's now larger farm will continue to be eligible for a nonprofit organizations exemption. As noted above, alternatively, the nonprofit organization could make no use of the property and avoid the payment, but then it might not qualify for a nonprofit organizations exemption due to lack of use (RPTL, §420-a(1)(a); but see §420-a(3) regarding exemption for unused land where exempt use is contemplated in good faith). If, however, the organization were to convert its new parcel to non-farm purposes, albeit nonprofit purposes which might qualify for exemption from taxation pursuant to section 420-a, in our opinion, the conversion payment would still be due.

  (I lost the link to this document but I may findd it later if needed.)
• 

  manon

  Sorry to frighten you DJ but thats a day in the life of a big city. 1 whacky organizations moves out while 3 more move in. The integrity of a historical neighborhood outweigh the policy/might of 1 creepy org.
• 

  kgfreeperson

  I seem to recall that when we were looking at a house they owned, the assessed value was something around $75,000 while the sales price was something around $255,000. Would that hold in this kind of situation? Sales price approx 3 times the assessed value?
• 

  Gerard

  I seem to recall that when we were looking at a house they owned, the assessed value was something around $75,000 while the sales price was something around $255,000. Would that hold in this kind of situation? Sales price approx 3 times the assessed value?

  The Watchtower PAYED $226,708 to the seller (MOUNTAIN BROOK LIMITED) back in 9/30/1998. Probably written off as an "operational expense", as their twin-engine airplane they use to go to fishing places in Alaska.
• 

  amac

  Probably written off as an "operational expense", as their twin-engine airplane they use to go to fishing places in Alaska.

  What is your point Gerard? Besides a house would be a capital expenditure, not an operational expense. Nevertheless, it would be a business expense for the WT Corp, not a personal purchase. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.