Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest Nicole

The Jehovah's Witnesses put 69 Adams St. in DUMBO up for sale

Recommended Posts

Guest Nicole

The Jehovah's Witnesses have just put onto the sale market a development site in the heart of DUMBO, 69 Adams St.

The building that now occupies the site has a four-story recreational facility and an 84-space parking garage.

Its rooftop is graced with an open-air tennis court — which is topped by a fence so cars and pedestrians down below don't accidentally get pelted with over-exuberantly hit balls.

The Watchtower recently posted the sale offering online without alerting reporters.

According to the posting, 69 Adams St. is “a 157,410-square-foot development opportunity adjacent to the iconic Manhattan Bridge.”

The Jehovah's Witnesses did not offer any comment about their sale offering to the Brooklyn Eagle when asked about it. They did give the Eagle permission to publish their images of 69 Adams St.

Zoned for as-of-right residential development

The city Landmarks Preservation Commission doesn't have any control over what is built at 69 Adams St. because it is located outside the neighborhood's historic districts.

Because of the site's zoning, “a new luxury residential tower with commercial, community facility and retail uses” can be built as-of-right, the Watchtower's online description of the site notes.

The religious organization, which has had a major presence in the area for more than a century, is in the throes of selling off its once enormous property portfolio in Brooklyn Heights and DUMBO. That's because the Jehovah's Witnesses are relocating their headquarters to upstate Warwick, N.Y.

The 69 Adams St. site has 103 feet of Front Street frontage. It's caddy-corner to upscale food market Foragers, and shares its block with a handsome residential tower, 85 Adams St.

If a residential tower is built at 69 Adams St., it will have views of Lower Manhattan's skyscrapers, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge, the East River and the Midtown Manhattan skyline.

According to city Finance Department records, the site has belonged to the Watchtower since 1991, when the organization purchased it from LI Machine & Pattern Works Inc.

Another Watchtower property recently sold for $105 Mil

The Jehovah's Witnesses began a new round of property offerings this past December. Since then, the organization has closed on the $105 million sale of 124 Columbia Heights, a 10-story residential building on the Promenade in Brooklyn Heights, to Florida Panthers hockey team owner Vincent Viola, Finance Department records indicate.

Also, the Watchtower has made a handshake deal to sell its Brooklyn Heights headquarters at 25-30 Columbia Heights and a nearly 1 million-square-foot development site at 85 Jay St. in DUMBO for roughly $700 million, the New York Postpreviously reported. The buyer is Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.     

In addition to 69 Adams St., the other Watchtower property that's currently available for sale is 107 Columbia Heights, a 154,000-plus square-foot residential property in the Brooklyn Heights Historic District.

Several other Watchtower properties in Brooklyn Heights and DUMBO have not yet been put up for sale.

Source: 

    Hello guest!

69-adams-aerial-view.jpg

69-adams-manhattan-bridge-view.jpg

69-adams-night.jpg

69-adams-street.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Isabella
      Terrain-NYC created 11 garden spaces at Panorama, which was formerly the Jehovah’s Witnesses headquarters. Photo by Steven Tupu/Terrain-NYC

      This dramatic picture shows the staircase and grove behind Panorama’s 58 Columbia Heights. Photo: Steven Tupu/Terrain-NYC

      The deck behind Panorama’s 58 Columbia Heights looks inviting. Photo: Steven Tupu/Terrain-NYC

      There’s a serene seating area in front of Panorama’s 30 Columbia Heights. Photo: Joe Norman/Terrain-NYC


      These sweet seats are outside the front entrance of 25 Columbia Heights in the Panorama complex. Photo: Joe Norman/Terrain-NYC

      Lighting created by One Lux Studio adds visual drama to a grove of trees behind Panorama’s 58 Columbia Heights. Photo: Steven Tupu/Terrain-NYC

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      Posted by Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. on November 9, 2019 at 4:20 am  
      The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Thursday in a lawsuit against a religious congregation’s “shunning” practice, but the congregation and several other groups contend the justices had no right to even take part in the case.
      Randy Wall, a real estate agent, filed the suit against the Highwood congregation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization in Calgary, Alberta.
      Wall was expelled from the congregation for getting drunk and not be properly repentant, court records said. He pursued an appeals process through the Jehovah’s Witnesses then went to court because he said the Witnesses’ “shunning” — the practice of not associating with him in any way — hurt his business.
      He explained his two occasions of drunkenness related to “the previous expulsion by the congregation of his 15-year-old daughter.”
      A lower court opinion said: “Even though the daughter was a dependent child living at home, it was a mandatory church edict that the entire family shun aspects of their relationship with her. The respondent said the edicts of the church pressured the family to evict their daughter from the family home. This led to … much distress in the family.”
      The “distress” eventually resulted in his drunkenness, Wall said.
       
      Wall submitted to the court arguments that about half his client base, members of various Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations, then refused to conduct business with him. He alleged the “disfellowship had an economic impact on the respondent.”
      During high court arguments Thursday, the congregation asked the justices to rule that religious congregations are immune to such claims in the judicial system.
      The lower courts had ruled that the courts could play a role in determining whether or not such circumstances rise to the level of violating civil rights or injuring a “disfellowshipped” party.
      The rulings from the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeals said Wall’s case was subject to secular court jurisdiction.
      A multitude of religious and political organizations joined with the congregation in arguing that Canada’s courts should not be involved.
      The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms said in a filing: “The wish or desire of one person to associate with an unwilling person (or an unwilling group) is not a legal right of any kind. For a court, or the government, to support such a ‘right’ violates the right of self-determination of the unwilling parties.”
      Previous case law has confirmed the right of religious or private voluntary groups to govern themselves and dictate who can be a member.
      But previously rulings also reveal there is room for the court system to intervene when the question centers on property or civil rights.
      The Association for Reformed Political Action described the case as having “profound implications for the separation of church and state.”
      It contends the court should keep its hands off the argument.
      “Secular judges have no authority and no expertise to review a church membership decision,” said a statement from Andre Schutten, a spokesman for the group. “Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere.”
      John Sikkema, staff lawyer for ARPA, said: “The issue in this appeal is jurisdiction. A state actor, including a court, must never go beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court must consider what kind of authority the courts can or cannot legitimately claim. We argue that the civil government and churches each have limited and distinct spheres of authority. This basic distinction between civil and spiritual jurisdiction is a source of freedom and religious pluralism and a guard against civic totalism.”
      He continued: “Should the judiciary have the authority to decide who gets to become or remain a church member? Does the judiciary have the authority to decide who does or does not get to participate in the sacraments? Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere. Here we need separation of church and state.”
      The Alberta Court of Appeal, however, suggested the case was about more than ecclesiastical rules.
      “Because Jehovah’s Witnesses shun disfellowshipped members, his wife, other children and other Jehovah’s Witnesses were compelled to shun him,” that lower court decision said. “The respondent asked the appeal committee to consider the mental and emotional distress he and his family were under as a result of his duaghter’s disfellowship.”
      The church committee concluded he was “not sufficiently repentant.”
      The ruling said “the only basis for establishing jurisdiction over a decision of the church is when the complaint involves property and civil rights,” and that is what Wall alleged.
      “Accordingly, a court has jurisdiction to review the decision of a religious organization when a breach of the rules of natural justice is alleged.”
       
                     
    • By Witness
      (No, I haven't taken time to download the nifty app., so just providing the link)
       
    • By Witness
      A message from a former Bethelite.
       
       




  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

  • Topics

  • Members

    • R Hester

      R Hester 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

    • Claud's Lst  »  misette

      Bonjour Misette comment ça va. Merci beaucoup pour ton travail que tu as fait et continue de faire. 
      Nous avons pas reçu le joyau pour cette semaine, dis nous si il y a un problème. 
      Merci que Jéhovah continue de te benir. 
      · 2 replies
    • Isabella

      Good ideas 
       

      · 0 replies
    • 4Jah2me  »  Srecko Sostar

      Hi Srecko. I hope you can see this photo. This is my daily driving car. It is outside a Dance Studio where  I have danced and hope to go dancing again, John 

      · 2 replies
    • Tennyson  »  Queen Esther

      Hello my sister, i have not head from you long sice. I hope you are wel. Hope to hear from you soon. Agape.
      · 0 replies
    • Doryseeker  »  4Jah2me

      *** it-2 p. 7 Jehovah ***
      The Codex Leningrad B 19A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwahʹ, Yehwihʹ, and Yeho·wahʹ. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wahʹ. (Ge 3:14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yahʹ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6) Also, the forms Yehohʹ, Yoh, Yah, and Yaʹhu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·beʹ and I·a·ou·eʹ, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.”
      Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyahʹ, Isaiah would become Yeshaʽ·yaʹhu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shuʹaʽ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sousʹ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.
      *** it-2 p. 7 Jehovah ***
      The Codex Leningrad B 19A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwahʹ, Yehwihʹ, and Yeho·wahʹ. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wahʹ. (Ge 3:14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yahʹ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6) Also, the forms Yehohʹ, Yoh, Yah, and Yaʹhu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·beʹ and I·a·ou·eʹ, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.”
      Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyahʹ, Isaiah would become Yeshaʽ·yaʹhu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shuʹaʽ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sousʹ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.
       
      · 1 reply
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      62,831
    • Total Posts
      122,616
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      16,662
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Emoo
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.