Issues, Etc. on the ULC situation with Pr. David Kind

And another blog post on the issue:

Father Hollywood

 

Found on Issues, Etc.

The Proposed Sale of University Lutheran Chapel-Minneapolis & Campus Ministry in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

Pastor David Kind of University Lutheran Chapel-Minneapolis, MN


 

Right-click here to save MP3

 


Comments

Issues, Etc. on the ULC situation with Pr. David Kind — 35 Comments

  1. Minnesota South District LCMS

    SAGACITY, n. [OF, fro, Latin sapiens, fr, sapere to
    be wise]
    Quality of being sagacious; keenness of
    discernment or judgment.
    SAGE, n. [OF, fr. sage, fr. L sapers to be wise]
    A profoundly wise man; a person of high repute
    for wisdom; often someone who is venerated for the
    store of wisdom that has been accumulated during a
    long life.

    “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.”

    Prove me wrong.

    PLEASE!

    IXOYC

  2. I think someone should start a new thread with this article and have a discussion about how this is not only bad for the Church, but it is bad for the neighborhood. I thought we were supposed to be good neighbors, in so far as it is God-pleasing to do.

    New editorial in the Minnesota Daily:

    There goes the neighborhood
    Development companies are destroying the character of student neighborhoods.

    http://www.mndaily.com/2011/09/27/there-goes-neighborhood

  3. @Old Time St. John’s #3
    Yes, but I am glad that it at least distinguishes the “owner” from ULC, so it eliminates the idea that somehow ULC is abandoning the neighborhood, but instead could also be victims of the development craze. It’s a loss all around, except for the developers and MNS (who don’t realize that in the end they will lose too-short term gain, ultimate loss).

  4. According to a post I saw on Facebook from ULC, it’s no longer a proposed sale, the district has actually entered into an official agreement to sell the property for 3.5 million. Adding, of course, some sophistry on how this won’t end ULC’s ministry on or near campus. Lord, have mercy.

  5. They entered into the agreement on 9/23 and just informed ULC today. The classiness continues.

  6. The document from MNS says they listed the property, but nothing about for how long that listing was. Might MNS have been able to reap even more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ if they listed it longer so that other developers might submit competing offers? All we have, apparently, is the long-time Treasurer having a broker list the property at some point, then she just says ULC did not submit an offer.

    Time to post a “for sale” sign at Grand Ave in Burnsville.

  7. Towards the end:

    “The Mission Committee’s strategy also provides opportunities for additional LCMS congregations to conduct ministry on the U of M campus…”

    They are selling the building and forcing a congregation to move so that they can open up the campus for other congregations to do what the original congregation was already doing.

    The audacity…

  8. They listed it immediately following the BOD meeting about 10 days ago, from what I understand. The Treasurer was given authority to accept any bid over $3.2 million.

    At the previous meeting in May, the Treasurer had been charged with getting an assessment of the property’s value and reporting back to the Board in September. ULC was never informed of the assessed value and had only just begun fundraising efforts in August. It wasn’t until the September meeting that the Treasurer not only reported the assessed value, but moved a resolution authorizing the sale of the property. Of course ULC didn’t have the resources to make an offer of that magnitude days after finding out what the listing price would be. Duh. And they didn’t have the resources a mere 10 days later when the developer made an offer. Go figure.

    Apparently it helps them sleep at night to be able to say that they gave ULC a chance to buy the property themselves.

  9. @M Frahm #8
    No, the letter from the district says that they have a purchase agreement in place.
    It also says that the broker informed the ULC of the listing but did not get an offer from ULC.

    The whole thing is on a very accelerated timeline at best. It’s quite a railroad job.

  10. “On September 23, I executed a purchase agreement on behalf of the District with Doran Development, LLC…”

  11. Well, it certainly appears as if the MNS BOD never wanted to work out a solution with ULC that would let them keep the property. That is, that they just didn’t want the money but also wanted ULC gone or put in a position where they would soon be gone.

    TLH #260

  12. @Phil #9 : “The Mission Committee’s strategy also provides opportunities for additional LCMS congregations to conduct ministry on the U of M campus…”

    This, presumably, will not involve “sheep-stealing.”

    Oh, and here’s a couple of excerpts from the memo by MSD Treasurer Lu Clemmensen:

    “When the time comes I will also work with ULC to coordinate its departure from the Property and its move to the new location where it will continue its ministry.”

    “If the congregation chooses, it may continue to conduct campus ministry on or near the campus.”

    How advisedly magnanimous of MNS District officials! /sarc

  13. It is rather magnanimous of MNS. It just fails to leave out that ULC has no new location so the district will only kindly escort them off the current property. It also fails to mention that the money supposedly allocated to ULC by the district will not even come close to getting them any space on or near the campus. Assuming the district actually lives up to its promises.

    But hey, it’s real Christian of the Treasurer to make those offers.

    Again, Lord, have mercy.

  14. At this point I think a civil suit should be filed. I do believe that this action was not legally the MNS District’s action to take alone. The District “leadership” has acted against the interests and without the consent of the MNN District or without the consent and contrary to the will of those who raised the money for this property.

  15. All secular legal angles have been pursued. I think that “legally” MNS District does indeed have the sole right to make this sale. Legal right does not make a moral right.

  16. District conventions are coming up next year. Who is the proposed “successor” to President Seitz in MN South? Word is that he is not running next time. Time to get organized on the district level far better than most have in the past.

    I wonder if Klemet Preus would be willing on chime in on this issue as he’s in that district and is listed on the masthead of this website?

  17. No big surprise Seitz is not running again. I think this whole ULC sale was done to be his “legacy” and that’s why he cared not one iota about the outcry against it.

    Until we, the LCMS, restructure our church to be more like the Church, and less like a business, I fear we will experience more “business decisions” made by District Presidents that hurt the Church.

  18. Noreen,
    Whle “legally” MNS district might have the sole right to make this sale that does not preclude a nuisance law suit. They happen all the time and most often for no real reason. I am acquainted with a case locally of a nuisance law suit that has tied put development for 3+ years on very flimsy reasoning. All you need to do is be lucky enought to get the right judge.

  19. @Noreen Linke #20

    If the endowment fund hasn’t been set up, could the district convention decide that most (or all) of the $3.5 million proceeds be used by ULC for new property?  At least, this would conform to the original donors’ intent.

  20. Noreen, I do not think so. The CCM gave a non-opinion opinion because the questions were not worded correctly (the District tried to spin it as proof that they could sell the property, but they misinterpreted the CCM non-opinion opinion), it still does not resolve the fact that the property was excluded from the division of assets, thus the MNS District “leadership” acted beyond their authority in selling what was not theirs to sell. The question is who exactly could properly bring suit? Since the MNS Board is our elected leadership, it is doubtful that this could be brought forth by a group of pastors or congregations from the MNS District, however from the MNN District, it likely could. I would also add that my call for a civic suit is because the District has not responded to calls to repentance, will not hear from pastors or congregations who wish to talk about the matter, but instead chooses to operate with then integrity of Enron or Judas Iscariot.

    Also, this now has to pass a title search, which the 1963 resolution could throw a serious wrench into the process.

    Finally, it would have to be rezoned, which there is opposition.

  21. There is a statute of limitation for the MNN to put a lien on the title, and that has long passed. There have been a lot of legal opinions sought by ULC that have not been posted on blogs and I can not talk about all of that. I just wanted to state that all those angles have already been pursued by lawyers with lawyers.

    Rezoning now, that is still a viable angle. Although with the current zoning they can build a building that housing I think 65 people.

  22. @John Rixe – original donors intent was for ULC to be located exactly where it is located. So, ummm……

  23. @Noreen Linke #26

    As one of the original donors I can affirm what you say.  However, since this seems to be no longer possible, what is the next best alternative?  I feel it is to construct a replacement student center and chapel using funds from the disposal.

  24. “We are not gnostics” … bad publicity … doing it because they can … no regard for the broken hearts of supporters … a going business or ministry … initial contributions and those made over the years for specific purpose, now treated as investment capital for board to use as it pleases … if they can do this, what else will they do … sold before it was for sale … all that remains to make this a perfect match is an insider making fees on the deal, and the synod to finance it.

  25. Noreen Linke :No big surprise Seitz is not running again. I think this whole ULC sale was done to be his “legacy” and that’s why he cared not one iota about the outcry against it.
    Until we, the LCMS, restructure our church to be more like the Church, and less like a business, I fear we will experience more “business decisions” made by District Presidents that hurt the Church.

    Reminds me of the slash-and-burn dimmocrat health care bill. Nice legacy.

  26. @Old Time St. John’s #11
    Yes, I neglected to write that they’ve entered into an agreement with a buyer.

    I guess my point is that they can’t even sell the building to the highest bidder properly, at least with how they’ve communicated it.

    If I were the Treasurer’s boss, based on the information I’ve read so far, I’d be wondering why we accepted an offer already if we’re trying to maximize the money we’re taking in. What’s the rush in accepting an offer mere days after listing the property?

    But, that’s assuming they’re trying to get as much $$$ as possible. Since they’ve done so little to prove that’s their goal, my presumption is that their actual goals were not to maximize the money received, but to “seal the deal” ASAP.

  27. @Matthew Mills #28

    I still want to stop this, and until the wrecking ball shatters the cross on the front of the chapel, that’s what I’ll be working on.

    If not that, a fall-back position that salvages as much as possible, chiefly: location, location, location.

    Approach Doran about a hybrid development in which Doran develops residential units but also a space suitable for use as a chapel that could be rented (or better yet, condominiumized) to ULC. Take look at the aerial photo. There might be room to do this.

    Let Kelly Doran become Cyrus, and Pr Kind Ezra. If Mr. Doran will do this, he’s community minded. If not, he’s a church wrecker. We don’t have to judge. He will show himself. But only if asked.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.