|
Post by déjà vu on Feb 25, 2014 22:58:36 GMT -5
We are friends with a couple who had conv. for over 30 years and they both suffered from tremendous headaches all those years. But guess what , as soon as the property was sold the headaches ceased.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 23:00:46 GMT -5
They would be expected to host several meals for many workers during preps and convention.Really?? For as long as I can remember, the owners, and sometimes others in the community have been hosted at meals by the workers! They may or may not use their own funds or provisions to do so. When I was more involved in preps, that is generally what I observed. The convention owners didn't have a huge burden placed on them during preps. Otherwise, I think gecko45 is pretty accurate. I have heard of workers grousing about grounds being in bad shape when they arrive for preps.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Feb 25, 2014 23:06:12 GMT -5
Let's get this straight. You are saying that the "or" is a non-overseer non-worker (presumably a professing representative of the infirm owner) and that "or" person will make the sale decision without any input from overseers as long as someone is willing to continue conventions on the property? Sorry, that was a long sentence! In spite of it being long, it was mostly accurate. The preference is to be able to continue the convention whether the owner is a member of the fellowship or not. If that doesn't happen, the property will be listed on the open market which will likely preclude future conventions there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 23:21:54 GMT -5
Let's get this straight. You are saying that the "or" is a non-overseer non-worker (presumably a professing representative of the infirm owner) and that "or" person will make the sale decision without any input from overseers as long as someone is willing to continue conventions on the property? Sorry, that was a long sentence! In spite of it being long, it was mostly accurate. The preference is to be able to continue the convention whether the owner is a member of the fellowship or not. If that doesn't happen, the property will be listed on the open market which will likely preclude future conventions there. Thanks Brick, that is a very interesting proposal....that a non-professing person could potentially host conventions. Why not? The workers could pay rent for the facilities and the owners could market the operation to other events such as church camps, sports camps, educational camps, nudist camps...whatever. There is really no reason for the property to be owned by professing people. Quakertown could be the way of the future! The workers could come to a long term arrangement for the facilities, such as a long term lease for 10 years. That could also help market the property today for suitable owners.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 26, 2014 5:53:50 GMT -5
...at least during the nudist "convention ", nobody could be preaching about dress code or critical of each others immodest clothing. Still would not solve the long or short hair issue so some division there, but now we' re splitting hairs. Reserve please for a one week slot sometime in summer. Agreed, nobody is really looking forward to seeing me there, old as I am........alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 6:06:21 GMT -5
The following is an excerpt from an email that was put in circulation on 2/15: "This message will confirm that the convention ground in Quakertown, PA is being offered for sale. The property consists of 58 +/- acres on a paved road in an urban setting, but is taxed as a farm. It includes a large, modernized home and multiple outbuildings as you would expect a convention property to have. All buildings are in good repair. The property is situated in a manner that will lend itself to being parceled off without infringing on the convention ground area . Some of the ground is leased annually to a local farmer for planting and harvesting corn and other farm crops. If you have an interest in exploring the possible options of ownership, please contact your overseer..." With the 'contact your overseer' aspect of this email --- How can 2x2ism claim that they are not involved in dealing in real estate? What is hypocrisy?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 26, 2014 6:08:54 GMT -5
Let's get this straight. You are saying that the "or" is a non-overseer non-worker (presumably a professing representative of the infirm owner) and that "or" person will make the sale decision without any input from overseers as long as someone is willing to continue conventions on the property? Sorry, that was a long sentence! In spite of it being long, it was mostly accurate. The preference is to be able to continue the convention whether the owner is a member of the fellowship or not. If that doesn't happen, the property will be listed on the open market which will likely preclude future conventions there. In NSW Glencoe has been owned for some time now by an unprofessing family who allows it to continue - there is supposed to be a caretaker (one of the friends) living in the house. Mudgee has also been sold and I believe a trust is involved in the purchase. Facilities here are much more modern than Glencoe.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Feb 26, 2014 8:02:24 GMT -5
With the 'contact your overseer' aspect of this email --- How can 2x2ism claim that they are not involved in dealing in real estate? What is hypocrisy? Please read my second post on this thread for clarity.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 26, 2014 8:26:06 GMT -5
Being serious now, I think it was good idea to post that information about convention grounds for sale. Probably some prospective people might find out by reading about it here, so useful forum for many aspects of the church. Alvin n
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 8:50:02 GMT -5
In the excerpt from the email that I posted, I cropped off some contact information that followed "contact your overseer..." There was an "or" with contact information including an email address that I felt that I don't have the right to publish since I was not a recipient of the original email. My point is that there was no intent in the email to have an overseer filter out perspective buyers. I expect those who regularly attend the convention would be happy for anyone to buy it that would allow the convention to continue. This is the kind of hidden ownership that the maffia and other undercover organizations use --- Where workers are careful not to hold the land titles but are anxious to maintain control of the real estate for their own purposes. Workers are most often careful to not have their names on the registration papers for vehicles -- yet I know of several cars where the registered owner NEVER uses the car. In a large part of the world they live in living accomodation rented or borrowed just like everyone else on the earth, yet they claim uniqueness in they they have no home??? Many of the homes of richest folks in the world, are not registered in their own personal names. They control significant bank accounts and trust funds --- but are careful not to put them in their own names. .. so they can claim they are homeless and poor!!! 2x2ism is built of issues that are meant to appear different than the facts of reality. To me it is pure dishonesty! Yet they call it "The truth"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 9:15:23 GMT -5
In the excerpt from the email that I posted, I cropped off some contact information that followed "contact your overseer..." There was an "or" with contact information including an email address that I felt that I don't have the right to publish since I was not a recipient of the original email. My point is that there was no intent in the email to have an overseer filter out perspective buyers. I expect those who regularly attend the convention would be happy for anyone to buy it that would allow the convention to continue. This is the kind of hidden ownership that the maffia and other undercover organizations use --- Where workers are careful not to hold the land titles but are anxious to maintain control of the real estate for their own purposes. Workers are most often careful to not have their names on the registration papers for vehicles -- yet I know of several cars where the registered owner NEVER uses the car. In a large part of the world they live in living accomodation rented or borrowed just like everyone else on the earth, yet they claim uniqueness in they they have no home??? Many of the homes of richest folks in the world, are not registered in their own personal names. They control significant bank accounts and trust funds --- but are careful not to put them in their own names. .. so they can claim they are homeless and poor!!! 2x2ism is built of issues that are meant to appear different than the facts of reality. To me it is pure dishonesty! Yet they call it "The truth" What Brick is trying to tell us is that the Quakertown property is not under the control of the workers. The sale is being conducted by a non-worker family representative who will be making the decision on the sale.....which may lead to no convention at all in the future. Sounds pretty upfront to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 9:41:49 GMT -5
This is the kind of hidden ownership that the maffia and other undercover organizations use --- Where workers are careful not to hold the land titles but are anxious to maintain control of the real estate for their own purposes. Workers are most often careful to not have their names on the registration papers for vehicles -- yet I know of several cars where the registered owner NEVER uses the car. In a large part of the world they live in living accomodation rented or borrowed just like everyone else on the earth, yet they claim uniqueness in they they have no home??? Many of the homes of richest folks in the world, are not registered in their own personal names. They control significant bank accounts and trust funds --- but are careful not to put them in their own names. .. so they can claim they are homeless and poor!!! 2x2ism is built of issues that are meant to appear different than the facts of reality. To me it is pure dishonesty! Yet they call it "The truth" What Brick is trying to tell us is that the Quakertown property is not under the control of the workers. The sale is being conducted by a non-worker family representative who will be making the decision on the sale.....which may lead to no convention at all in the future. Sounds pretty upfront to me. Hardly upfront about the fact that fact that 'the work' is anxious to keep control of the property for convention purposes -- To the work the convention grounds is 'their issue' and thus who the new owner is is irrelevant, as long as the convention can continue there.. This makes the continuation of the convention for 2x2 purposes the issue --- not the holder of the realestate papers. Clearday, both you and I know of quite similar circumstances at Didsbury, where a convention grounds changed hands because of 2x2 leadership contention with the owners -- and a 'the work' dug up a new professing 'owner' that would be more under their thumb than the previous one. As well, you probably won't remember it --- but I clearly remember when the Smeaton convention grounds changed hands 1966-67 -- arranged in the exact same way 'by 2x2 leadership' -- Or the convention grounds at Aylesbury --- the new owners didn't just turn up from a real estate agent. -- Hand picked by the workers - no previous interest in farming. It is quite hypocritical for 2x2ism to claim a distance from real estate concerns -- when they are the prime movers in the buying and selling of the property .. and do the major part of the investment in the facilities. The myth about using existing facilites (on a farm for instance) for a convention is directly dishonest these days. Convention ground are bought and developed primarily for 2x2 conventions -- any other activity is minor in comparison in importance --- even if the convention is just a few days a year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 10:30:45 GMT -5
What Brick is trying to tell us is that the Quakertown property is not under the control of the workers. The sale is being conducted by a non-worker family representative who will be making the decision on the sale.....which may lead to no convention at all in the future. Sounds pretty upfront to me. Hardly upfront about the fact that fact that 'the work' is anxious to keep control of the property for convention purposes -- To the work the convention grounds is 'their issue' and thus who the new owner is is irrelevant, as long as the convention can continue there.. This makes the continuation of the convention for 2x2 purposes the issue --- not the holder of the realestate papers. Clearday, both you and I know of quite similar circumstances at Didsbury, where a convention grounds changed hands because of 2x2 leadership contention with the owners -- and a 'the work' dug up a new professing 'owner' that would be more under their thumb than the previous one. As well, you probably won't remember it --- but I clearly remember when the Smeaton convention grounds changed hands 1966-67 -- arranged in the exact same way 'by 2x2 leadership' -- Or the convention grounds at Aylesbury --- the new owners didn't just turn up from a real estate agent. -- Hand picked by the workers - no previous interest in farming. It is quite hypocritical for 2x2ism to claim a distance from real estate concerns -- when they are the prime movers in the buying and selling of the property .. and do the major part of the investment in the facilities. The myth about using existing facilites (on a farm for instance) for a convention is directly dishonest these days. Convention ground are bought and developed primarily for 2x2 conventions -- any other activity is minor in comparison in importance --- even if the convention is just a few days a year. Yes, I'm well aware of the Didsbury circumstances (not Smeaton) of close worker involvement. Brick is telling us that the involvement is not the same as, for instance, Didsbury. I have a choice of accepting what he has said or calling him a liar, and until he is proven otherwise, I will accept his word for it. I can cite another recent circumstance in which workers had very little involvement in the sale of the convention. It was the Independence convention in Kansas. I have information on the process of the sale but without going back and looking it up, I can say that the owners were largely left on their own with regard to the sale as they were preparing to retire to a warmer climate. Eventually a "friend" did emerge to buy it, but for awhile there it was looking like it was going to be sold and the convention shut down. I recall that the owners were quite surprised at how little involvement the workers had in it....it appeared if they were disinterested in the outcome one way or another. I was very surprised as well, knowing that in Western Canada an ownership change was more likely to feature workers actively seeking a new owner for which there would be multiple applicants. However, since then there has been some ownership changes in the West and I understand that it wasn't a fast process to find new owners......although I expect that workers were actively seeking new owners.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 26, 2014 10:38:57 GMT -5
From what I hear, some "Friends" are purchasing the Hogtkiss conventions grounds. Originally they were going to be shut down.
I'm not sure of the details. Does anyone know any more on this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 10:48:32 GMT -5
From what I hear, some "Friends" are purchasing the Hogtkiss conventions grounds. Originally they were going to be shut down. I'm not sure of the details. Does anyone know any more on this? This appears to be a new trend that convention grounds aren't getting snapped up practically overnight like they would have 20 years ago and prior. The convention grounds in Western Canada that were for sale were widely known to be for sale long before anyone stepped up.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Feb 26, 2014 11:59:29 GMT -5
In spite of it being long, it was mostly accurate. The preference is to be able to continue the convention whether the owner is a member of the fellowship or not. If that doesn't happen, the property will be listed on the open market which will likely preclude future conventions there. Thanks Brick, that is a very interesting proposal....that a non-professing person could potentially host conventions. Why not? The workers could pay rent for the facilities and the owners could market the operation to other events such as church camps, sports camps, educational camps, nudist camps...whatever. There is really no reason for the property to be owned by professing people. Quakertown could be the way of the future! The workers could come to a long term arrangement for the facilities, such as a long term lease for 10 years. That could also help market the property today for suitable owners. If the workers are willing to work with resort-minded folks, there isn't a limit as to where conventions could be located: hotels, libraries, restaurants, schools, anywhere you could rent a hall with adequate hotel rooms nearby.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 12:29:01 GMT -5
Thanks Brick, that is a very interesting proposal....that a non-professing person could potentially host conventions. Why not? The workers could pay rent for the facilities and the owners could market the operation to other events such as church camps, sports camps, educational camps, nudist camps...whatever. There is really no reason for the property to be owned by professing people. Quakertown could be the way of the future! The workers could come to a long term arrangement for the facilities, such as a long term lease for 10 years. That could also help market the property today for suitable owners. If the workers are willing to work with resort-minded folks, there isn't a limit as to where conventions could be located: hotels, libraries, restaurants, schools, anywhere you could rent a hall with adequate hotel rooms nearby. True. The current trend of challenges for finding new owners of convention grounds is just the beginning of what will become a critical problem. It's not critical yet as new owners are being found, albeit slowly. I am guessing that the problem will become acute in about 10 years after most of the baby boomers have retired and are no longer in a position to look after such property. Conventions will then fall to their children's generation who I think will be far less interested in taking on such a big responsibility (most of them being urban dwellers anyway), and it will also be a smaller pool of people to consider it.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 26, 2014 12:41:30 GMT -5
My point is that there was no intent in the email to have an overseer filter out perspective buyers. Interesting test to see who would leap to that conclusion - even after you clarified it!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 26, 2014 12:55:15 GMT -5
With conventions it's becoming way more about the cost of owning than the cost of running the convention. Younger people simply don't have the money to take over a convention grounds. Around here they are lucky to own a house for 300K+ with 5K+ taxes and specials, and a couple 30K+ vehicles in the garage. With that and a few kids with upcoming college expenses they are at their financial limit. After paying for today's living expenses very few would have anything left for buying and maintaining a convention grounds.
|
|
|
Post by gecko45 on Feb 26, 2014 12:56:24 GMT -5
In spite of it being long, it was mostly accurate. The preference is to be able to continue the convention whether the owner is a member of the fellowship or not. If that doesn't happen, the property will be listed on the open market which will likely preclude future conventions there. Thanks Brick, that is a very interesting proposal....that a non-professing person could potentially host conventions. Why not? The workers could pay rent for the facilities and the owners could market the operation to other events such as church camps, sports camps, educational camps, nudist camps...whatever. There is really no reason for the property to be owned by professing people. Quakertown could be the way of the future! The workers could come to a long term arrangement for the facilities, such as a long term lease for 10 years. That could also help market the property today for suitable owners. I think that the newest convention in California, Shelter Valley, gives us a glimpse of a convention property in the future. An actual camp ground and convention facility that is booked well in advance for the convention week(s). It will generate income for the owners all the rest of the year and will be always in compliance with regulations and codes being that it is truly a public facility. F & W will miss the preps (can be a month long in some places) that are as much a part of convention as the actual days of meetings. This arrangement at Shelter Valley does raise the issue of payment. The normal camping "fee" would probably be waived for those coming to convention but the loss of revenue for the grounds at the time of convention could hardly be expected to be absorbed by the owners, wealthy as they might seem to be. Rochedale in Australia being shut down lead to convention being held in rented facilities (schools I think) on consecutive weekends. Not all were happy with the arrangement but we may see more of that in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 13:33:26 GMT -5
Does anyone have a link to a real estate website selling the grounds?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 26, 2014 13:54:53 GMT -5
With conventions it's becoming way more about the cost of owning than the cost of running the convention. Younger people simply don't have the money to take over a convention grounds. Around here they are lucky to own a house for 300K+ with 5K+ taxes and specials, and a couple 30K+ vehicles in the garage. With that and a few kids with upcoming college expenses they are at their financial limit. After paying for today's living expenses very few would have anything left for buying and maintaining a convention grounds. I know that one of the Minnesota convention grounds were put into a 99 year trust for use as convention grounds, plus a trust fund set up to maintain the property. A new home was built using the trust money, and a caretaker placed into the home for taking care of the property. That took care of that issue. I also know of another case where a couple purchased property for the purpose of opening up a new convention ground at considerable expense to themselves. After purchase, the overseer decided that they would not utilize that property for a convention ground, and it created a bit of a strained relationship with all involved. Purchasing a property doesn't mean that the workers are going to continue to help maintain or utilize the property for convention, so that is something prospective buyers should keep in mind. Most people in a financial position to purchase property either are going to be young enough to need the property to generate a living for them and their family (because they would be leaving their jobs behind) or old enough not to need the income, and therefore going to have to be physically able to keep the property up and be able to lease it out when not used for convention. Or the overseers could get together and pool some of their various money to purchase the money property in the name of one of the friends, and install an acceptable caretaker for the property as is done on other grounds which are held in trust. It could be seen as an investment, as the property should gain in value.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 26, 2014 13:57:27 GMT -5
With conventions it's becoming way more about the cost of owning than the cost of running the convention. Younger people simply don't have the money to take over a convention grounds. Around here they are lucky to own a house for 300K+ with 5K+ taxes and specials, and a couple 30K+ vehicles in the garage. With that and a few kids with upcoming college expenses they are at their financial limit. After paying for today's living expenses very few would have anything left for buying and maintaining a convention grounds. This is so true. If convention owners don't have kids to pass their place down to, the new generation just can't afford to buy. The ones that can afford it, aren't looking to take on that big of a responsibilty at that point in their lives. In the prior generations, usually the kids would simply take over the business (farm). It would pay for itself. Now a days, farming has been dominated by large corporations, so many times the convention grounds do not pay for themselves. I would guess that this would be the case here. The price of the facilities will not pencil out in regard to what the facilities will financially produce.
|
|
|
Post by gecko45 on Feb 26, 2014 14:19:13 GMT -5
With conventions it's becoming way more about the cost of owning than the cost of running the convention. Younger people simply don't have the money to take over a convention grounds. Around here they are lucky to own a house for 300K+ with 5K+ taxes and specials, and a couple 30K+ vehicles in the garage. With that and a few kids with upcoming college expenses they are at their financial limit. After paying for today's living expenses very few would have anything left for buying and maintaining a convention grounds. This is so true. If convention owners don't have kids to pass their place down to, the new generation just can't afford to buy. The ones that can afford it, aren't looking to take on that big of a responsibilty at that point in their lives. In the prior generations, usually the kids would simply take over the business (farm). It would pay for itself. Now a days, farming has been dominated by large corporations, so many times the convention grounds do not pay for themselves. I would guess that this would be the case here. The price of the facilities will not pencil out in regard to what the facilities will financially produce. In addition to that the kids are not always as hearty and system minded as the parents may have been. When the present owners of a convention property become older and begin to have health problems the workers and friends get a bit nervous in case the unprofessing children inherit the property. More than one convention in recent times has had to find a way to deal with this. One current convention needed a lot of work but with a unsure future no one wanted to invest the time and money it truly needed. The new owners are young and I expect several big projects there over the next few years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 14:35:31 GMT -5
Yes, I'm well aware of the Didsbury circumstances (not Smeaton) of close worker involvement. Brick is telling us that the involvement is not the same as, for instance, Didsbury. I have a choice of accepting what he has said or calling him a liar, and until he is proven otherwise, I will accept his word for it. I can cite another recent circumstance in which workers had very little involvement in the sale of the convention. It was the Independence convention in Kansas. I have information on the process of the sale but without going back and looking it up, I can say that the owners were largely left on their own with regard to the sale as they were preparing to retire to a warmer climate. Eventually a "friend" did emerge to buy it, but for awhile there it was looking like it was going to be sold and the convention shut down. I recall that the owners were quite surprised at how little involvement the workers had in it....it appeared if they were disinterested in the outcome one way or another. I was very surprised as well, knowing that in Western Canada an ownership change was more likely to feature workers actively seeking a new owner for which there would be multiple applicants. However, since then there has been some ownership changes in the West and I understand that it wasn't a fast process to find new owners......although I expect that workers were actively seeking new owners. I am not suggesting that Brick has not explained the situation as it is ... I just have noted from what he said, that the workers feel a need of getting into real estate concerns to make sure that they have the possibility of influencing the deals that are made regarding their convention system. There would be nothing wrong with this except for the hard necked resistence they claim to have against other churches involvement in property concerns. This places 2x2ism firmly in the realms of first degree hypocrisy as I understand it. Of course this is just one of the many examples of such moral compromise that saturates group doctrine. The enormous size and importance of the 2x2 convention system has forced the group into moral mine-fields at every turn. The normal method of dispersing of property is to take it to a real estate agent, and asking them to find a buyer. Normally when property is sold, the new owners have the right to decide how it is used. That is why ensuring the 'right people' take ownership is important for 2x2ism organizational concerns!!!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 26, 2014 15:04:03 GMT -5
The normal method of dispersing of property is to take it to a real estate agent, and asking them to find a buyer. Normally when property is sold, the new owners have the right to decide how it is used. That is why ensuring the 'right people' take ownership is important for 2x2ism organizational concerns!!! Or you could take it to the agent and have it put on the market with the conditions of using the convention grounds as part of the sale. If, in time, no one wants to buy the property under those terms, the conditions can be modified/removed. Not everything is a dark conspiracy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 15:16:38 GMT -5
The normal method of dispersing of property is to take it to a real estate agent, and asking them to find a buyer. Normally when property is sold, the new owners have the right to decide how it is used. That is why ensuring the 'right people' take ownership is important for 2x2ism organizational concerns!!! Or you could take it to the agent and have it put on the market with the conditions of using the convention grounds as part of the sale. If, in time, no one wants to buy the property under those terms, the conditions can be modified/removed. Not everything is a dark conspiracy. Yes -- something like that could maybe be possible --- But it is rather tricky to define the legal status of this 'convention' that is to be held on the property, when it isn't registered anywhere and no one can know for sure who will be responsible for it!!! And the financial responsibilities need to be defined etc etc. Like I said, it is somewhat of both a legal and moral mine-field. It is much easier to administer if the property owner will just simply accept the fact that it is really God in heaven that directs the workers, so everything will be fine as long as you do what they say!!!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 26, 2014 16:01:12 GMT -5
Yes -- something like that could maybe be possible --- But it is rather tricky to define the legal status of this 'convention' that is to be held on the property, when it isn't registered anywhere and no one can know for sure who will be responsible for it!!! And the financial responsibilities need to be defined etc etc. Like I said, it is somewhat of both a legal and moral mine-field. That is what contracts are for. The access needed, the condition of the property before and after, the liability, etc. The biggest question is with whom the contract would be implemented. There is no legal entity, as you pointed out, to even present the contract. Can god sign contracts?
|
|