Posted by: AndrewM, Shawlands, Glasgow on 12:21pm Mon 8 Sep 08
Thankfully through the Freedom of Information Act we will be able to see how much taxpayers money has been spent on this fantastic building in recent years. It is one thing to hand over an unwanted building to the Council but quite another for the Council to hand back an important community asset and make no provision for local people.
Thankfully through the Freedom of Information Act we will be able to see how much taxpayers money has been spent on this fantastic building in recent years. It is one thing to hand over an unwanted building to the Council but quite another for the Council to hand back an important community asset and make no provision for local people.
Posted by: John, Glasgow on 1:11pm Mon 8 Sep 08
Tut-tut, people. Your bitterness is showing.
Tut-tut, people. Your bitterness is showing.
Posted by: par ochrial, renfrew on 1:48pm Mon 8 Sep 08
John ,I dont see any bitterness in the previous posts,maybe you think it is a good idea for the Council to maintain a building they dont own for 15 years.Should the church not be asked to at least contribute to the upkeep expended in the past 15 years?
Maybe you should look inward for the bitterness you see. I only se people talking politics.
John ,I dont see any bitterness in the previous posts,maybe you think it is a good idea for the Council to maintain a building they dont own for 15 years.Should the church not be asked to at least contribute to the upkeep expended in the past 15 years?
Maybe you should look inward for the bitterness you see. I only se people talking politics.
Posted by: John, Glasgow on 2:46pm Mon 8 Sep 08
Thanks par ochial for your comment but "cult" is surely a pejorative term. The church didn't just appear in situ but was passed from from the the Archdiocese to the Council in a deal which suited both parties at the time with the proviso that it could be returned at a future date, if, again, it suited both parties. So initially the Archdiocese relinquished control of a building that was surplus to requirements and the Council obtained use of a building that it needed. That situation is now apparently reversed. Surely it is an eminently sensible arrangement? Would this have been worthy of comment had it been a lease of a commercial building? I wonder.
Thanks par ochial for your comment but "cult" is surely a pejorative term. The church didn't just appear in situ but was passed from from the the Archdiocese to the Council in a deal which suited both parties at the time with the proviso that it could be returned at a future date, if, again, it suited both parties. So initially the Archdiocese relinquished control of a building that was surplus to requirements and the Council obtained use of a building that it needed. That situation is now apparently reversed. Surely it is an eminently sensible arrangement? Would this have been worthy of comment had it been a lease of a commercial building? I wonder.
Posted by: The thinking alternative, City centre on 2:59pm Mon 8 Sep 08
John, on what basis does it suit the council to 'sell' the church back to the Archdiocese? As far as I can see, it means local community groups are effectively thrown out and the Glasgow people lose another asset. And another thing....this wasn't some complicated deal with provisos, it was SOLD to the council who have thus no right to give it away. As par ochrial says, this has worked out as a free storage deal for the Catholic church at the taxpayers expense, and quite frankly reeks of corruption.
John, on what basis does it suit the council to 'sell' the church back to the Archdiocese? As far as I can see, it means local community groups are effectively thrown out and the Glasgow people lose another asset. And another thing....this wasn't some complicated deal with provisos, it was SOLD to the council who have thus no right to give it away. As par ochrial says, this has worked out as a free storage deal for the Catholic church at the taxpayers expense, and quite frankly reeks of corruption.
Posted by: clayton-moore on 3:13pm Mon 8 Sep 08
[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote:
Tut-tut, people. Your bitterness is showing. [/quote] No one can question the financial probity of a council property sold for next to nothing to a religious organisation to which many of the council belong but the bigots are out denying that ratepayers have any right to say how their assets are managed.
Reminiscent of other property deals in the city.
Land surrounding a certain football stadium sold for a penny and a certain municipally owned training ground where the purchase price was split with a former tenant, coincidentally the same football team as owns the stadium.
shhhhhh don't ask questions.
John wrote:
Tut-tut, people. Your bitterness is showing.
No one can question the financial probity of a council property sold for next to nothing to a religious organisation to which many of the council belong but the bigots are out denying that ratepayers have any right to say how their assets are managed.
Reminiscent of other property deals in the city.
Land surrounding a certain football stadium sold for a penny and a certain municipally owned training ground where the purchase price was split with a former tenant, coincidentally the same football team as owns the stadium.
shhhhhh don't ask questions.
Posted by: John, Glasgow on 3:33pm Mon 8 Sep 08
TTA, again thanks for commenting. I note that nobody is being evicted and are being accomodated within the building or nearby property so that's hardly being thrown out. I think if you look back you will find the initial deal did have provisos for sale back. You might note that the Council only paid a pound for the building in the first place and I wonder if anyone commented then on the "steal" that that was and demanded that the Archdiocese should be suitably recompensed. And by the way, of course the Council has the right to dispose of property - it does it all the time - you might not agree with that but that's a different matter. Again do you not think that the Council should pay for any utilities or repairs while they have a property?
As for your claims of corruption...well that's a serious charge and do you have any evidence?
TTA, again thanks for commenting. I note that nobody is being evicted and are being accomodated within the building or nearby property so that's hardly being thrown out. I think if you look back you will find the initial deal did have provisos for sale back. You might note that the Council only paid a pound for the building in the first place and I wonder if anyone commented then on the "steal" that that was and demanded that the Archdiocese should be suitably recompensed. And by the way, of course the Council has the right to dispose of property - it does it all the time - you might not agree with that but that's a different matter. Again do you not think that the Council should pay for any utilities or repairs while they have a property?
As for your claims of corruption...well that's a serious charge and do you have any evidence?
Posted by: par ochrial, renfrew on 4:52pm Mon 8 Sep 08
John,
Cult - a system of religous belief.
Nothing derogatory in that definition,maybe you are being a wee bit over sensative.
Your seeing bitterness where none exist except in your own thinking.
This "deal"has been one of accommdating the church selling it for a penny then buying it back for a penny is suspect. I wonder if the council will offer me the same deal to look after my house for the next fifteen years?
John,
Cult - a system of religous belief.
Nothing derogatory in that definition,maybe you are being a wee bit over sensative.
Your seeing bitterness where none exist except in your own thinking.
This "deal"has been one of accommdating the church selling it for a penny then buying it back for a penny is suspect. I wonder if the council will offer me the same deal to look after my house for the next fifteen years?
Posted by: John, Glasgow on 5:28pm Mon 8 Sep 08
par ochial,
That is one definition amongst others - it is still a pejorative term.
Did the deal not also accomodate the Council at the time? We can only assume that the Council was happy to obtain the building for a pound (not a penny) and have no leasing or rental costs since then. That's what happens in any deal, both sides reach an agreement. In what way is it suspect? Please offer some evidence to support your conclusion.
The Council might take up the offer of your house but you'll have to move out and find other accomodation at your own expense and let the ballroom dancers in. Don't spend the pound all in the same shop.
par ochial,
That is one definition amongst others - it is still a pejorative term.
Did the deal not also accomodate the Council at the time? We can only assume that the Council was happy to obtain the building for a pound (not a penny) and have no leasing or rental costs since then. That's what happens in any deal, both sides reach an agreement. In what way is it suspect? Please offer some evidence to support your conclusion.
The Council might take up the offer of your house but you'll have to move out and find other accomodation at your own expense and let the ballroom dancers in. Don't spend the pound all in the same shop.
Posted by: tam-m, southside on 8:33pm Mon 8 Sep 08
A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Glasgow said: "We would be keen for the groups to continue to use the building as far as is possible.
"We want to make sure that people are not disadvantaged by the change of ownership. The space at the current John Duns site could be used, or the church hall or the interior of St Francis."
nobody is losing out what is the problem.
A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Glasgow said: "We would be keen for the groups to continue to use the building as far as is possible.
"We want to make sure that people are not disadvantaged by the change of ownership. The space at the current John Duns site could be used, or the church hall or the interior of St Francis."
nobody is losing out what is the problem.
Posted by: thistlemad, Ayrshire on 11:42pm Mon 8 Sep 08
[quote][bold]tam-m[/bold] wrote:
A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Glasgow said: "We would be keen for the groups to continue to use the building as far as is possible. "We want to make sure that people are not disadvantaged by the change of ownership. The space at the current John Duns site could be used, or the church hall or the interior of St Francis." nobody is losing out what is the problem.[/quote] the comment "as far as possible" is the one that MAY make most people suspicious.
Also the fact that the council has paid for the upkeep of the church for 15 years is another one.
IF the council had not "bought" it, it would have fallen into disrepair, and most likely have had to have been demolished, at the expense of the Church.
In THAT respect the Church has made a killing. However IF the church in question was in good repair at the time the council got it, then its only fair that it should be returned in the same state. Otherwise compensation to the council SHOULD be sought.
tam-m wrote:
A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Glasgow said: "We would be keen for the groups to continue to use the building as far as is possible. "We want to make sure that people are not disadvantaged by the change of ownership. The space at the current John Duns site could be used, or the church hall or the interior of St Francis." nobody is losing out what is the problem.
the comment "as far as possible" is the one that MAY make most people suspicious.
Also the fact that the council has paid for the upkeep of the church for 15 years is another one.
IF the council had not "bought" it, it would have fallen into disrepair, and most likely have had to have been demolished, at the expense of the Church.
In THAT respect the Church has made a killing. However IF the church in question was in good repair at the time the council got it, then its only fair that it should be returned in the same state. Otherwise compensation to the council SHOULD be sought.
Posted by: annie, Glasgow on 12:04am Tue 9 Sep 08
Glasgow City Council has many buildings in the City which it does not own but must pay the upkeep of...it is called leasing. No-one has questioned that much in the past when most of these leases have been held by private sector businesses. At least in this case the Council actually owned the building, and remember that the Council would have been legally liable for its condition. Perhaps the Church retained the right in the previous sale to buy the building back for a pound. Perhaps the Council thinks it a better use of the building for it to revert to its original use. Perhaps the Council has no further use for it and intended to dispose of it anyway. It is quite clearly the case that the church has not made a killing here as suggested by some...the Council enjoyed the use of the building for 15 years for the princely sum of £1 whereas a lease could easily have been £6 per ft2 plus the maintenance costs. Good deal for the Council methinks.
Glasgow City Council has many buildings in the City which it does not own but must pay the upkeep of...it is called leasing. No-one has questioned that much in the past when most of these leases have been held by private sector businesses. At least in this case the Council actually owned the building, and remember that the Council would have been legally liable for its condition. Perhaps the Church retained the right in the previous sale to buy the building back for a pound. Perhaps the Council thinks it a better use of the building for it to revert to its original use. Perhaps the Council has no further use for it and intended to dispose of it anyway. It is quite clearly the case that the church has not made a killing here as suggested by some...the Council enjoyed the use of the building for 15 years for the princely sum of £1 whereas a lease could easily have been £6 per ft2 plus the maintenance costs. Good deal for the Council methinks.
Posted by: pancho77, Glasgow on 9:53am Tue 9 Sep 08
Personally Im glad to see that St Francis will be used for its original purpose as my Great Grandad and most of my family since were baptised there and some of my earliest memories of the Gorbals were going with my Granny to mass on Sunday then to the Cumberland Arcade for sweets and on to the rose garden to see her pals .
Personally Im glad to see that St Francis will be used for its original purpose as my Great Grandad and most of my family since were baptised there and some of my earliest memories of the Gorbals were going with my Granny to mass on Sunday then to the Cumberland Arcade for sweets and on to the rose garden to see her pals .
Posted by: leesome, Glasgow on 8:11pm Tue 9 Sep 08
Having helped publicise via a theatre performance within the building when a Monastery, back in the late eighties with the demolition crews threatening hundreds of years of Glasgow's history. I'm proud that the Archdiocese now has gained ownership again. Glasgow lost a lot of heritage when the Monastery closed, having met and walked with a man of silence, now understand the power of those who held silence for those whom talk.
Clear that a requirement for hall hire exists. First and foremost the Church is there for the original purpose, to hold Jesus, and that they have done for over 2000 years. Hope that both can be accomplished.
Having helped publicise via a theatre performance within the building when a Monastery, back in the late eighties with the demolition crews threatening hundreds of years of Glasgow's history. I'm proud that the Archdiocese now has gained ownership again. Glasgow lost a lot of heritage when the Monastery closed, having met and walked with a man of silence, now understand the power of those who held silence for those whom talk.
Clear that a requirement for hall hire exists. First and foremost the Church is there for the original purpose, to hold Jesus, and that they have done for over 2000 years. Hope that both can be accomplished.
Comment | Read Comments (14)
