The controversial former chair of the Board of Education Kenneth Moales is on the verge of losing his East End church and affiliated properties deep in mortgage payment debt.
From Dan Tepfer, CT Post:
The pastor of an East End church under foreclosure urged city officials Tuesday to take his properties by eminent domain.
“I’m putting out a public request,” the Rev. Kenneth Moales Jr. told Mayor Joe Ganim, state Sen. Marilyn Moore, D-Bridgeport, and City Council members during a Zoom session Tuesday afternoon. “Without your support we are done.”
Ganim told Moales he was concerned about the situation but was noncommittal to his proposal. Moore said she would commit to sending a letter to the state attorney general regarding the loan situation.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Meyer recently granted a temporary stay to Moales of the judge’s eviction order pending an appeal of the eviction to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
Moales, a former chairman of the city’s Board of Education, is senior pastor of Prayer Tabernacle Church of Love, Cathedral of the Holy Spirit and chief executive of CREAM Enterprises, a construction and management company. Through his church he owns 15 parcels of land in the East End.
Full story here.
This is a sad story but the courts will see through this as a way avoid foreclosure.
And if the city agrees to this then where does it end?
Moales is requesting the city of Bridgeport to take the church properties via eminen domain. It’s not his property if some other institution owns the mortgage. Walk away, it’s too big for you to handle even with God’s help.
I wish those of Cathedral of the Holy Spirit nothing but the best. It might be better if that property had a source of income from that land like some type housing that bought in money and have a smaller size church.
But why is the city conducting a zoom meeting in the middle of the afternoon?
Who was on the call?
Was it a committee meeting or just a social get together?
Paging Aidee!
What is going on? Get back to in person meetings NOW!
If the Church is going to lose the property, let it go to an entity that will pay property taxes. Bridgeport doesn’t need to own more property that doesn’t pay taxes
Was Maria on this zoom call ? I don’t think so!
I would like to know what is the past practice is for simular cases.
“Pay every debt as if God wrote the bill.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson
Mark 12:16
So they brought it, and He asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they answered.
Luke 20:25
So Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
Romans 13:7
Pay everyone what you owe him: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
Treasury of Scripture
Bob, how can the city agree to eminent domain? Like the court will go along with it to it. To do what with it? Give all the property back Rev Morales. Is there really a difference between losing someone losing their property by foreclosure or eminent domain?
Comrade, I don’t think it is solely about the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit property or its revenue stream. In the span of 8 years for 2013 its first foreclosure to this one in 2021 (belive) their property holding increased by 5 parcels, properties, and 7 million dollars more debt. Don’t know what those parcel and debt consist of but I am sure there is more going on with this case than a black church/house of worship being foreclosed on.
Marcus, I don’t think your negative sentiment for Bridgeport’s plight to house tax-exempt properties, particularly the black house of worship. You don’t hold the same concern for the Port plight when those tax-exempt properties service surrounding towns like the one you live in. Your sentiment is more political Blackhouses of worship have long played role in politics, especially with the Democrat Party since the Civil Rights Act of 1964
I am sorry to hear you wouldn’t want to see the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit on the East End go to some other pastor if lost to serve it a community because of the concern for Port’s plight on tax-exempt status. In the spirit of JML, if a rabbi was interesting in taking over the church would you hold the same sentiment within? Does Moore who you are a supporter of holds your view? Does Moses of the East End hold your view?
Jim Maria’s smart enough to know this is a political football, and so does Pastor Morales.
Local Eyes, the lords prayer, And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. Matthew 6:12 BAM 🙂
Either way, I am out of here like it’s a hunted house. Peace out people 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asnQGz7BdfI
P.S trust me, people, don’t do it, run. Run like Forest Gump 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZLN4FdRMfA
@Robert
#1 My opinion is just that, mine. I did not discuss this with anyone, I rmeone asked aboutesponded to the article that I saw in the CT Post and Lennie’s blurb above.
#2 someone asked about the difference between losing the property in foreclosure and to eminent domain.
From my law school days and years as a property owner and landlord.
When a property is foreclosed, The court orders a sale at auction for cash, closing in 30 days subject to court approval. Usually, any equity is lost between lenders, fees, auction expenses and the bid at or around the debt amount, by the few buyers able to show up with a 10% cashier’s check for the estimated auction price and able to close in 30 days without getting financing.
If taken by eminent domain, the property owner is supposed to receive fait market value (appraisal and negotiations held by owner and government taking the property. This normally should be well above the debt owed on a mortgage. The property owner walks away with cash and government is stuck with property to be maintained and/or sold.
#3 I have no problem with the current owner selling it to another non-profit if the sale can satisfy the debt to the lenders.
#4 My comments have absolutely nothing to do with race or religion of political parties. Cities have far too much non-tax paying property. This leaves an unfair burden on property owners. That’s why I’d like it sold to a tax paying entity. We can’t count on the taxpayers of the other 168 municipalities in the state for PILOT funds to cover lost property tax.
#5 The town of my residence has nothing to do with my opinion. Mrs M is a Bridgeport property owner and taxpayer.
#6 I am in favor of taxing all houses of worship, bar none. This is not a theocracy and I don’t believe we taxpayers should subsidize them
I hear ya, but are you absolutely sure this view has nothing to do with race, religion, or political parties? or is it just about the money?
I don’t want to split hairs regarding someone’s property be taken from them be it the moneylender or government. However, I am a bit perplexed by the view you did not discuss with anyone. Do you want the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit, if lost, to go to an entity that will pay property taxes to ease Bridpeport’s plight of tax-exempt status property or not? Or is it just about satisfying the debt to the moneylenders?
I am also confused by these words, being a Bridgeport property owner and taxpayer who don’t want other municipalities in the state to fund tax-exempt property that is needed and serve other municipalities and the state as a whole.
In the Spirit of JML; Are you saying Bridgeport taxpayers should burden the cost for the entities needed, like hospitals, courts, and other entities that serve the society that is tax-exempt? Is property tax the one tax the state levees? Are you absolutely sure words don’t have anything to do where you resided? Are they accurate to the litter of the law/dictionary? Or am I just splitting hairs?
P.S when you say, bar none is it just a house of worships that shouldn’t be subsidized, or does that bar none include non-profits that provide a needed service to the poor as long as they satisfy the money lenders. That too can is absolutely confusing. JS
Keeping with the theme of confusing, either way, that must be the Jesus in you, depending on how you want to read it. BAM 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8z_Noilw1E
@Robert T
#1 Please excuse all my typos, I’m in the middle of two eye surgeries and don’t see the keyboard that well
#2 I did not discuss this with anyone. It was my reaction to the CT Post story. For many decades I have held the belief that any property owned by religious institutions should be fully taxed. I base this on our tradition of separation of Church (religion) and state. I don’t care which religion it is and whether it is a place of worship, school, cemetery, housing, etc. We plow the roads, provide police, fire, ems and the property taxes would help pay for that,
#3 This view is totally color blind and has nothing to do with political affiliation, tax each and every one of those properties. And, yes, I know this is not a popular view.
#4 it is not my business who end up with these properties. If the lenders foreclose, as soon as title passes the propertied become taxable. If sold to tax exempt entities they go off the tax rolls. BUT, I am not in favor of eminent domain that could give the foreclosee a potential windfall and then the city owns the properties and no tax revenue is realized.
#5 I did not say Bridgeport taxpayers should shoulder the burden for all tax exempt property that serves people, not just those from Bridgeport. I specifically talked about taxing property owned by religious institutions. The old St. V’s is now owned by Hartford Healthcare, not the church. I have no problem with PILOT funds that are contributed to by taxpayers in the rest of the state helping Bridgeport with this burden.
#6 The State does not levy Property Tax. municipalities do. I believe both State and Federal Government should make payments to municipalities to cover the expenditures made by municipalities in connection with those properties.
#7 I make no mention of satisfying money lenders as a condition of tax exempt status. Not every tax exempt has a loan to pay back. Some raised the funds before construction or purchase, some paid off their loans. Their loans are not my business.
#8 I have no clue what you mean by the Jesus in me. There is no Jesus in me. I am not a Christian and that entity is not part of my life.
There is no such thing as separation of Church. That is just wordplay. I am absolutely sure you know that’s not was the Frist Amendment states. That tradition and popular views are held by those who hold more secular views within, especially in the political realm of governance. The same can be said for the view on religious taxation.
I really don’t want to get into America’s tax code/system on who plays and who doesn’t or why. But I read 55 corporations exempt themselves for pay federal taxes.
Churches are a major element in the black community especially in the time of Southern tradition of separate but equal in America. They play a political role in politics, then and today.
While your view on taxation may not be colorblind on taxation of religious entities to plow the roads, police, fire, etc. Are those words honest, fair, and equal? If they are not, well, doesn’t it matter of one’s view of discussion?
Where do you draw the line on who pays taxes for what services? Not everyone is privileged to own property to pay property taxes. In your case, I believe you stated) a high raise rental as a source of financial gain. Yet many use the roads, police, fire, and other services property owners pay for. Is that any less of a burden on property taxpayers?
Some views think we should cancel rant, even abolish the police. I am sure that is not your view. It may not be your business but some views even think we should cancel interest on money lending too.
My Jesus in your remark was because I find your words to be hypocritical at their face value. You don’t need Jesus in you to know if that is true, however, it was based on the link. Although according to Don Draper, either he live in your heart or he doesn’t 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y4b-DEkIps
P.S don’t mind my typos, grammar. Did you Jesus was a Jew. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfN1NcjS_6s
Ron
There is no similar cases.
The City would pay the fair maker value for anything taken by eminent domain.
So I am guessing that would be around $14 million.
So we buy the church so that Rev Moales could continue to use.
Also if bonded debt is being included, it might be prohibited due to the sole beneficiary of the bonding placing the entire bond package taxable.
I believe Everyone is entitled to a second chance even a church, we bail out people and things over the years, just last year we save the new Amphitheater when it ran out of money .
So come on Joe Ganim show us some Holy Spirit!
A “church” isn’t definable physically; it is definable in terms of the congregation and their spiritual agenda. The latter can be preserved as long as there is a number of “believers.” There is no type of hardship extant here that would indicate any sort of government intervention. The congregation can find a location(s) to meet and carry out their spiritual agenda without the involvement of the government, per the political philosophy/laws directing separation of church and state in this country.
The property in question, under threat of foreclosure for nearly a decade, would better serve the community by returning it to the tax roles for use in jobs creation for the East End and larger communities…
As the topic of the pastor of an East End church under foreclosure urged city officials Tuesday to take his properties by eminent domain. Let’s not forget this topic that was in Connecticut Post on Sept. 22nd and the City failure to act.
“From ‘troubled’ to ‘substantial default’: Feds step in to help failing Bridgeport housing authority”
Brian Lockhart
Sep. 22, 2021
BRIDGEPORT — It is not a formal federal takeover, but the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is assigning staff to work more closely with officials at the city’s failing public housing authority to improve the situation there.
The authority, named Park City Communities, provides units for 9,500 low-income tenants.Seven years after designating the authority as “troubled” because of poor management, finances and building upkeep, HUD on Aug. 19 notified Bridgeport’s executive director for the past year, Jillian Baldwin, via letter that her agency was “in substantial default” of its recovery plan.
Any federal public housing entity rated below 60 on HUD’s annual performance assessment scale of 100 is deemed “troubled” and given two years to shed that label. Bridgeport’s authority, which scored a 56 rating in December 2014, currently has an even worse rating of 48.
“Despite HUD’s long history of cooperatively and comprehensively engaging with BHA (the Bridgeport Housing Authority) … BHA has repeatedly failed to fix the systemic issues of its failing public housing … programs,” reads the letter. “The performance of its public housing program has not recovered, and its … designation has remained troubled.”
While HUD already had employees working with Bridgeport, Rhonda Siciliano, a HUD spokesperson, told Hearst Connecticut Media in a statement that “as a result of the substantial default classification, HUD will assign a remediation monitor and team who will work closely with BHA to take necessary steps to ensure decent and safe housing for residents.”
The authority, named Park City Communities, provides units for 9,500 low-income tenants.Seven years after designating the authority as “troubled” because of poor management, finances and building upkeep, HUD on Aug. 19 notified Bridgeport’s executive director for the past year, Jillian Baldwin, via letter that her agency was “in substantial default” of its recovery plan.
Any federal public housing entity rated below 60 on HUD’s annual performance assessment scale of 100 is deemed “troubled” and given two years to shed that label. Bridgeport’s authority, which scored a 56 rating in December 2014, currently has an even worse rating of 48.
“Despite HUD’s long history of cooperatively and comprehensively engaging with BHA (the Bridgeport Housing Authority) … BHA has repeatedly failed to fix the systemic issues of its failing public housing … programs,” reads the letter. “The performance of its public housing program has not recovered, and its … designation has remained troubled.”
While HUD already had employees working with Bridgeport, Rhonda Siciliano, a HUD spokesperson, told Hearst Connecticut Media in a statement that “as a result of the substantial default classification, HUD will assign a remediation monitor and team who will work closely with BHA to take necessary steps to ensure decent and safe housing for residents.”
Thanks Lennie, er, I mean Ron. I get the two of you confused.
I really thought the name change would take care of everything but I guess not.
But i guess the problem run deeper than that.
Now if Aidee really wanted to change things this would be a perfect place but I guess it would take way to much work.
BHA HAD a rating of 56 in 2014 and with all this attention it has gone DOWN to 48.
Maybe we need that councilman, Castillo, to go in there a kick ass.
This is a real coverup, Bob as you said, “thought the name change would take care of everything but I guess not.” The mayor has changed the directors and members of the Park City Communities or BHA (the Bridgeport Housing Authority) and the results have gotten worse, we are talking about 9,500 low-income tenants but where is the concern in the city, it’s the Hartford HealthCare Amphiteater and not the 9,500 low-income tenants. We all know that we can’t look for any leadership from the City Council and no one cares about the lack of leadership from Mayor Joe Ganim. Again, “Any federal public housing entity rated below 60 on HUD’s annual performance assessment scale of 100 is deemed “troubled” and given two years to shed that label. Bridgeport’s authority, which scored a 56 rating in December 2014, currently has an even worse rating of 48” where is the leadership for those 9,500 low-income tenants.
Bring back Clarence Craig!
Here’s your prelude to the state/federal takeover of Bridgeport that is soooo strongly indicated, Bob…
Cheers!
Happy Bicentennial, Bridgeport!
Jeff
I do not have an idea what you are talking about.
I never said have the feds bail out the city.
Unless you give Aidee far more credit than I do.
Everything was focused on Bridgeport fixin the problems they created.