Church Purchase

This topic contains 71 replies, has 1,797 voices, and was last updated by  Elena Weber 4 years ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 72 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5454

    Elena Weber
    Participant

    Ernie Knobloch’s letter on the purchase of the church is very misleading. The way I figure it, based on his numbers, the purchase of the church will cost us over $2.4 million over the 15 year period. That is over $800,000 in interest. Looking at the first 3 years lease vs purchase, the purchase will cost nearly $184,000 more. Based on this, I believe we should continue with the current lease. I believe any expenditure of this magnitude should only be done through a referendum, voted on by the citizens of Diamondhead. Your thoughts?

    See Knobloch Letter here: http://www.diamondheadnews.com/absolutenm/templates/Template.aspx?articleid=1458&zoneid=1

    #5453

    lulaird
    Member

    Elena,
    I relate the purchase of the church by the new city like newly weds buying their first home. You don’t buy your first home for the family you’ll have 20 years from now! You purchase it suit you present needs and income. How the heck did DH exist for all those year without it? Even a great buy is tainted by upkeep, utilities, interest on the note and insurance cost. It reminds me of a kid going off to college with Dad’s credit card.——Tom

    #5455

    teled
    Member

    and don’t forget about the huge additional cost to remodel!!!!!

    #5459

    Squaredeal
    Member

    Do not buy this expensive undertaking.We the people cannot afford it.

    #5464

    Sooner
    Member

    Looks like some shady business could be going on. Suppose there are some other local bondholders of the church besides Ackerman and this is very likely. And some of them are very tight with the interim mayor and council. The proposed purchase price would give them almost 100% of the value of their bonds. If the church went bankrupt and was sold by the trustee, they would be lucky to get 50% of the value of their bonds. The city might buy the church for 50% of the present proposed price.

    #5465

    Sooner
    Member

    Welcome back. In the foregoing post I forgot to give my opinion of the purchase of the church. I think it sucks.

    #5470

    Squaredeal
    Member

    I’m of the same opinion, J.C., and I have the same opinion of the election in Diamondhead..By the way, my wife and I voted for you, did little good as we voted against ALL incumbents, but they won.

    #5531

    Squaredeal
    Member

    I will tell you, Mr. Knobloch has an agenda to buy that building..that tells me the deal is crooked, and he will line his pockets with a lot of Taxpayer’s money..if not, why not wait and buy it after foreclosure for a smaller amount ?

    #5532

    wayne king
    Participant

    Why buy it now? Who else is going to buy it ? What else is it useful for, Mabey some temporary offices for a new casino…….

    #5626

    vsimons
    Participant

    July 22, 2013: Chancery Court Rules Against DH City Council in church-purchase bond issue.

    Judge cites two major violations of the MS Municipal Budget Law, for which “the Legislature intended strict compliance”…”because failure to do so caries a CRIMINAL PENALTY,” according to the Judge.

    #5627

    Eags753
    Member

    Miss. Code Ann. 21-35-33 (Copy w/ Cite)
    Pages: 1
    Miss. Code Ann. 21-35-33

    MISSISSIPPI CODE of 1972

    *** Current through the 2012 Regular Session ***

    TITLE 21. MUNICIPALITIES
    CHAPTER 35. MUNICIPAL BUDGET

    Miss. Code Ann. 21-35-33 (2013)

    21-35-33. Penalty for violation

    Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and punished as provided by law, which shall be in addition to any other penalty now or hereafter imposed by law.

    HISTORY: SOURCES: Codes, 1942, 9121-18; Laws, 1950, ch. 497, 18, eff from and after August 31, 1950.

    #5628

    Squaredeal
    Member

    Words will not adequately explain how happy I am about this, it would have been a horrible increase in our taxes..you folks in City Hall, move back to the POA..it will save you zome trips since most of you have “positions” there anyway.
    Tell me someone wasn’t going to line their pockets with MORE of our money.It is blatantly obvious this was a terrible idea to begin with, this is Diamondhead, not Biloxi or Gulfport..pull off your rose colored glasses small time politicians. and deal with it.

    #5629

    teled
    Member

    This should make our “new” city council take note-we may not have not been able to get all the incumbents out but the eyes of more residents of Diamondhead have definitely been opened! Do anything that seems just a little shady and we will fight you!! WE”RE MAD AS HELL AND WE”RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    #5630

    rohboat
    Participant

    We all owe Pete Kolf a debt of gratitude for his considerable effort in bringing this about.
    I am savoring the push back on the dynamic trio.
    We will now see if the administrative skills and intestinal fortitude of the mayor are up to the task of combating the confrontation that the trio will predictability provide.

    #5631

    Editor
    Moderator

    Obviously Al Showers, Mayor Schafer and Ernie Knoblock either did not read Judge Schloegel’s ruling or they don’t understand the English language. The Honorable Chancellor found that the interim city council BROKE THE LAW! Violated state statutes, however you say it, they acted illegally. She also advised of criminal penalties. It was not just the the "Lame Duck" law. It was circumventing the state’s bid laws and requirements for budgets. If you haven’t read the Judge’s ruling, it is right here: http://www.diamondheadnews.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=1495&z=15 ,

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 72 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.