Are you sure, Blondie? What's to stop the Tower from using their usual double dealing methods? They could build all these "residential buildings" (that just happen to be full of self-contained apartments) for "religious purposes" and get whatever Govt. concessions and subsidies they can, then turn around and say that, due to the move to upstate New York and the need to downsize operations, these buildings are surplus to requirements, and flog them on the private market for squillions of dollars.
I WAS THINKING the same thing- using jw money, free labor from jw around the country to come in and build this building use it for a few months/years and then put it on the market at market value, they would make a mint
sorta like the Stanley assembly hall
#############
as for rich jw holding the title- the was done in the 80s' with the Standish and I think the Bossert Hotel
weathy jw owned it and the wt was actually behind the wheeling dealing all the time
they setup a private company out of GA- i think it was the guy who own the Auto Parts company
I was the president of the corporation that owns the local KH until I resigned as an elder about 2.5 years ago. There was no provision for the WTS to own the KHall property. The local corporation was made up of elders and ministerial servants. Provisions were made for the replacement of officers in the case of death or as in my case resignation. The WTS was never mentioned in any of the corporate documents or on the deed. There is no way that the WTS could come in and take over ownership of the property unless the local congregation agreed.
I have been in a number of congregations and served on the boards of several of the corporations. The above mentioned procedure was in effece in all cases that I personally know.
To establish that an organization's assets will be permanently dedicated to an exempt purpose, the articles of organization should contain a provision insuring their distribution for an exempt purpose in the event of dissolution.
In other words, if a congregation's KH is held by a local corporation, and they want it to be tax-exempt, its by-laws have to state that in the event of its dissolution, its property will pass on to another charitable organization. It only makes sense that the WTS would be chosen as that beneficiary.
So I don't think there's necessarily anything underhanded in the WTS being named as a beneficiary upon dissolution. It appears to be a legal requirement.
