“It’s a very worthy cause,” Hatfield said. “I plan to make a personal donation out of my wallet. It’s worth saving and I know they will get the money, but I don’t know that taxpayers should be paying so much of the $10 million.
“It’s one church and one religion in our community. You are opening the door that sets a precedent. Others are not going to want just $50,000 anymore, but also $100,000 or $200,000. It’s a slippery slope.”
The city contributes about $36,500 annually into the committee’s heritage fund.
While the Star was happy to report I voted no, they were far too lazy to ask me why… In fact, no one even bothered to talk with me after the meeting or call me for clarification, so since they dropped the ball, I’ll lay out my reasons why, because I know there are many out there with questions:
My vote was simply a protest vote. I only voted nay because I knew it would pass, had I felt the vote would be close it would of had my vote, as I do think it is an important project.
I voted no, because the diocese is not donating one cent to the project, yet they expect Windsor Taxpayers to do so via the fund. All the diocese is donating is money from the parking lot at the U, which another parishioner has told me that the church already got… and the other “gift” is the proceeds from future sales of other properties, several of which are other churches in the west end that will be, but still have yet to be closed. Among them, Holy Name of Mary on McEwen off Wyandotte, Blessed Sacrament on Prince,
and St. Patrick’s. The old close and sell routine, doesn’t sit well with me, plus the fact that there is no guarantee of what those building will sell for. I’m sure we’ll likely see another Christ the King style demo or two… (Holy Name of Mary is designated, therefore protected).
Had they even given a token amount of actual cash, then it would have been a different story. But a $10 million project, and they haven’t given one cent towards it. The onus as usual with the Catholic Church, is on everyone else.
So Windsor Star, thanks for not doing your job.
From the Border Cities Star - December 6, 1924, almost a century ago to the…
Built in 1929, the house at 2177 Victoria Avenue was originally numbered 1545 Victoria, pre…
Crescent Lanes first opened on Ottawa Street in 1944 at 1055 Ottawa Street, opposite Lanspeary…
Above is a photo of the home of Mr & Mrs Oswald Janisse, located at…
in 1917 two Greek brothers Gus & Harry Lukos purchased a one story building on…
View Comments
Amen to that brother. When the diocese closed my church, St. Annes, that was the end of Catholicism for me too.
i don't think anyone can blame you for that Andrew. i simply can't understand why the CC doesn't feel assumption is an important, and historical landmark.
coudos to you Andrew. and percy is right on the ball......where would it stop?
stupid question i suppose: why isn't the government interested in this either? why does noone care but us?
two of some of the oldest churches in north america sit across the river from each other, it would be a shame for ours to crumble.
I completely agree with your position. Very well thought out.
That was the reason I was against the funding as well. While the parishioners are donating, why should the Diocese be let off the hook?
Its hard not to discuss the problems that put the church in these situations. I must agree with your position(s) on this matter, it is hard to help someone when they are not ready to help themselves.
I guess my question would be, if public money will be spent to this degree without the CC's help, can Windsor lay claim to the church as they have to complete the Chrysler HQ downtown or the Brighton Beach acquisition for the construction of the bridge?
This structure is part of Windsor history regardless of the affiliation with the church. With its close proximity to Sandwich it would a great addition to the historic walk in Sandwich.
We do have gems in this city that we need to take advantage of. In regards to future funds for all, if the structure you desire the money for needs this type of investment and meets the criteria set forth, be ready to sign over the deed and be governed by Heritage Windsor. With a very generous lease back program, affordable for all of course, funds generated would maintain the historic development of our city.
It's all business. Obviously the business model doesn't spell out maintenance or re-investment. The parishioners tithes are supposed to pay for all of that and a handsome sum goes further up the road to the church. Could it be that the faith is not as important as the prosperity? These days it sure looks that way.
Even if London had tossed in a token amount equal to the grant they're getting I think that would have been ok with me.
As for the Federal/Provincial contributions, they no longer have funds for heritage properties, there haven't been any for at least a decade. In Quebec however there is all kinds of funding for heritage churches, as the government recognizes the importance of the buildings to the communities they are in.
An application for stimulus funding has been made, but the results for non-profits hasn't been released yet.
Andrew, write a letter to the editor explaining the reason for your vote. You'll get better play than being buried at the bottom paragraphs of a long story that ends on page 4.
"M.O.M. - Could it be that the faith is not as important as the prosperity? These days it sure looks that way"
hasn't changed in 2000+ years MOM....why start now? the people, the preists....those people are for the faith. the head honchos who run the show however....well it's always been about power and control. now that the church can't cut my head off for disagreeing with them, they'll just take my cash and give nothing in return. do they seriously have to close other churches to pay for this one? we all know the answer.
(i'm real tired if that didn'y make sense lol)
I feel like they knew this was coming, so there should of been an ongoing fundraising program in place. Maybe there was... I don't know.