Submitted by Rubysdad1975 t3_z5dhaw in baltimore
Renaiconna t1_ixzr4vt wrote
Reply to comment by ElectricStar87 in Five houses targeted for demolition in Mount Vernon historic district by Rubysdad1975
Fair. I wasn’t arguing with you so much as using your comment (which I only had the minor picky issue with) as a springboard to try to correct presumptions made by others in this thread. It’s just really disheartening to be constantly compared to the Catholic churches, or a mega-church, or some tax shelter for county residents when none of that is true. It’s plenty expensive maintaining the historic structure of the cathedral itself (built in the 1880s by Protestants, 50 or so years later left to rot after that parish had financial issues before being bought and restored by Annunciation). People are acting like these buildings were ever remotely habitable in the time the church has had them (nope, at least not without massive amounts of money being sunk into them) and that the hundreds of thousands of dollars it would take to restore them is something that a self-sufficient church just has (it does not).
I understand people’s concerns with historic value and architectural character. Maybe with the threat of razing the buildings, perhaps UB or another local institution with far more resources might now consider buying them (when they haven’t wanted to previously), and honestly there are plenty of folks in the parish that would prefer to rid themselves of the burden entirely.
ElectricStar87 t1_ixzsogg wrote
Point taken; thanks.
And to be clear, I have no issue with the (claimed) assertion that the majority of the members of that community tend to live in the county rather than the city. It’s only nominally relevant to the question at hand, and I am generally in favor of people from the county having some relationship to the city, whatever the form that may take, and vice versa for city residents. The city/county distinction is rather arbitrary in Baltimore.
CaptainObvious110 t1_iy22q3p wrote
Which raises the question of why they would accept or hold onto properties if they do not have the means of repairing them?
If anything selling those properties would make available more funds that could be used to maintain their building and to assist others as they have been doing.
Please forgive me if I have said anything wrong.
Renaiconna t1_iy37gl1 wrote
Quoting myself from another reply: >It was a donation from a parishioner, along with the second parking lot across from MedChi. There were initially hopes to be able to use the buildings for something, but the money wasn’t there and really hasn’t been there to be able to do anything substantial with them.
As for why accept… the church is not in the habit of turning down donations. They wouldn’t be able to survive if they were.
CaptainObvious110 t1_iy5b6n2 wrote
Luke 14:28.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments