I am disappointed in your article on the Cedar Springs situation, in which the Rev. Joe Fuiten tries to play the victim (“Lease causes rift in church,” Oct. 30).
This dispute is not about Mr. Fuiten’s politics, but his actions. Had he abided by his promise to honor the lease negotiated over three years, he would not be in this position. The ethical thing is provide a lease that allows the tenants to retain the equity in their homes.
Mr. Fuiten’s organization got about $4 million in assets for virtually nothing.
Many of the tenants he now claims are “taking advantage of” the camp built and donated to these assets.
Claims they are taking advantage of the camp’s tax-exempt status are ridiculous. The leased land is not tax exempt. Taxes for the parcel are $13,913.20, of which the leased land accounts for 68 percent. $9,460.98 divided by 20 homes equals $473 per house per year. The tenants now pay $2,700 per year, as they agreed to higher lease payments even without a valid lease. Do they use up $2,227 each in garbage, water and gravel?
So the claim that the tenants are being subsidized by the camp is based on what? The figures say they pay their way and then some. Even so, the tenants have agreed that some raise in rents would be reasonable.
Claiming it will take three more years to calculate the costs is nuts. They’ve been at it a year already. It can’t be that hard.
What’s the real plan? Is it only coincidence that a mall, school and sewers are going in over the next three years, which will make this property’s value skyrocket?
If the camp has no interest in taking these homes, then why is there no buyout clause in the lease? Why is negotiating a lease renewal on money-making property such a hard proposition?
Denise Foster
Snohomish
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
