Vote…

At the end of the summer[edit Fall-ooops] we all heard about the Church being purchased, I’m not from here and I knew nothing about it to be honest, I’m not familiar with many of the Churches here but can appreciate their role in the Community .

Rumbles about the purchase started coming out , still I am not an insider that is up on all the wheeling and dealing that goes on with Town acquisitions. I was emailed by others asking my opinion on the Church purchase and they can tell you– I was undecided because I did not know enough, $$ alone do not make me have opinions one way or another.

Before making up my mind if I was against the purchase or for it I needed to do some research. I am a proponent of historical preservation for many reasons and this was only done out of wanting to know the truth. From what I understand it is a sin to lie so I take everything I was given as the truth and I am sharing it with you all.

On March 7th I sent an email to the Church not knowing who would receive it or even if I would get a response. I asked to be put in contact with someone who was authorized to speak on behalf of the Church. I was firm that this was on the record and I wanted a name to with the answers, if I was to be given any. I introduced myself as a citizen that wrote a blog and not main stream media.

On March 11th , I received an email from the church email address but no name indicating that it was being looked into and if I had questions that would be helpful then they would go from there. I replied back with questions and today [March 19]– perfect timing as the letters to the editor are in print today and you will see that one of the letters is from the Woman who provided me the answers. (News Advertiser Letters)

Below are my questions and her answers on behalf of the Church. I am not going to provide my opinion at all because I just want to present the story at this time. I did send my opinion with my questions so they knew my feelings upfront.

My questions are bold-ed and the answers follow each one.

——————————————————————————–
Hello Karem

I am the Communication Chair at St. Francis de Sales, in a voluntary capacity. Please use my name if you wish to post the following responses in the blog. Father Roy Roberts and I have discussed your questions below and I provide the following responses. Please contact me or Father Roy for any clarification or further questions. Thank you.

1) Was the Church willing to save the Windows and integrate the Stained
Glass windows into the new church?

Yes, we had every intention of preserving ‘OUR HISTORY’, by using the stained glass windows within our new Worship Space, but not part of the exterior structure. It goes without saying that the best organization to preserve the dignity of the old windows is the Parish community; after all, it is our legacy. One of the issues is that they are not just window coverings; these windows represent the faith legacy of the St. Francis de Sales community. It is our belief that the donors had every intention of inspiring the local Catholic Community, not adorning the streets of Pickering Village. We owe it to our faith ancestors to protect their intentions, and preserve the religious dimension of them. From contact with some of the heirs of those windows, they are appalled that the Town
has robbed the Catholic Community of these statements of faith. They feel betrayed by both the Town and the Church for dismissing the original intent of the donations. The Town is reducing spiritually charged icons to tourist draws. To relinquish these stained glass windows to the secular state is a violation of our mandate and responsibility to them, and to the faith community.

Our intention was to sell the church on the condition that we received the Stained Glass. We never intended to depart with them, as we understand their value in way that the secularization of that building can never respect their religious value.

1a)Would the Town have purchased the Church without windows?
This is a question that should be asked of the Town.

We do know that the historical designation of the building highlighted the Stained Glass windows and the Steeple. This designation was declared after our Steering Committee began the design process and made it publicly known that our intent was to take the Stained Glass with us. In fact, we made the commitment to our faith community that the Stained Glass windows would be used as a testament to our heritage.

We also investigated with our architect the possibility of retaining the bell tower, but it was cost prohibitive, and the consultant said that so much of the old brick work would have needed to be replaced that essentially it would become a replica of the original.

2) Why was the plaque for the Heritage Designation not placed on Church
Property? –
The Heritage plaque was not allowed on church property, as a sign that we rejected the heritage claim, knowing that it might handcuff us in the end.

3)Were there any other interested parties to purchase the church and the
church believed in good faith would keep the structure and preserve the
building? Was demolition the only option?

We are aware that the Archdiocese did receive another offer to purchase the church, one being a firm commitment. As good town citizens, the Archdiocese wanted the Town to have first right of refusal. At all times, it was the parish’s assumption that all deals hinged on our ability to maintain control over these religious treasures.

The initial discussion of demolishing the old building started back in the 1950’s. That is when the walls were reinforced the first time. The walls were further reinforced in the 1980’s. The building has major issues, visible to the untrained eye. The walls are visibly bowed. In fact, one of our choirs would rehearse in there, but then moved out after a windy day when they saw the walls move. The floor inside is particularly uneven with age. We never pulled up the carpet for fear of what we would find.

A consultant stated, in the late 1990’s, that all the bricks in the building would need to be replaced soon because they were dry and crumbling. Anyone can take a walk around the building and see that the crumbling inflicts most of the building.

Demolition became an option only when the heritage designation was declared. The designation handcuffed us as meant that we had to demolish the church to retain our Stained Glass windows.

The Catholic Community knows a thing or two about preservation of old buildings. A vast majority of the churches in Canada remain today because the Catholic community recognizes and respects history. The decision to move forward and away from this building was a painful, but a necessary decision. We had investigated the possibility of saving the building, but the poor structural quality precipitated our decision to move to another building, which will outlast the old building. What better place to preserve the Catholic presence, than in the Catholic community? Certainly we represent a cheaper, more economically sound, more appropriate and safer environment to protect the dignity and intent, and purpose of these artistic treasures.

4) I have been told the Town ordered repairs to the building over the
years but they were not carried out, such as a leaky roof?
Can a roof be replaced easily if the Church is a heritage property or must
the repairs fit that time-frame in appearance? How much does this add to
the cost? (Me: This was a question based on spec– not a known fact)

If they have, we are unaware of any orders. We did not receive any mandates to repair it.
We did have an inspection to investigate the pealing paint on the ceiling in 2005. The investigator recognized it as cosmetics rather than structure. We did have the south roof re-shingled in 2005 and that seemed to rectify the pealing paint.

5) How was the relationship between the Church and the Town, was the sale process smooth ?

The sale was adversarial. We naively entered into the negotiations under the assumption that if we did not reach agreement on the Stained Glass windows that the Town offer would be null and void. We learned a week before the deal closed, that only the Town could declare the offer to be null. At our first meeting of negotiation in June 2007, we were told there was ‘very little wiggle room’ and the Town was only prepared to offer the back two windows that are not visible from the street. The Stained Glass of St. Francis de Sales, the Patron, was not on the table. We were not happy with the dictatorial nature of the pseudo-negotiations. We said that we would unhappily take back the offer and let them know our reply. The Town asked for us to accelerate our decision. The original time-line of the offer went into August. They wanted our decision the first week of July, which was less than two weeks after the meeting to accommodate the schedule of Town meetings.
Trying to assemble our committee on such notice, at that time of year presented challenges, but we said we would do so.

Before the end of June, we received a letter from the Town revoking the offer, and saying that no Stained Glass windows would be offered. From our perspective, the offer should have become null and void.

A meeting was held with the mayor, which was fruitless and frustrating for us. The Town had not completed, even started their due diligence, and asked for an extension. Our diocesan representative agreed to the extension.

Five days before the original deal was to expire, we were informed that we could not back out of the deal, that the deal was structured to give the Town all of the negotiating leverage. Furious, not respected and used, do not begin to describe how Father Roy and I felt.

The Diocesan Representative was asked to not to extend the deal. He claimed we had to because we had agreed to it at the meeting, and that we did not want to be seen to be negotiating in bad faith. He granted a one week extension. The Town was allowed access and they picked up the option.

There is more opportunity for the Stained Glass windows to be viewed in our new Worship Space. We have more traffic in and out of here each day, and the hours of operation exceed anything that the future plans of a community building will provide. We are the rightful heirs and preservers of those Stained Glass windows.

The Catholic Community of Ajax has been robbed and betrayed under the guise of historicity. The Town has shown zero respect for our place as a Catholic Community in the life of this Town, and those Stained Glass windows are, first and foremost, a special part of the history of the Catholic presence in Ajax. They are part of our identity, a reality that the Town cannot deny, nor can it duplicate. The value of those Stained Glass windows have been diminished, this community has been diminished, and the memory of those donors has been trampled.

We were steamrolled into a deal we would never have agreed to, if we knew the circumstances under which we would lose our legacy.

The windows are part of the heart and soul of the Catholic Community. They belong with us, the people of St. Francis de Sales.

Judy R. Marshall
—————————————————————————–

There you have it. I honestly did not expect the answers I received. I went into this just wanting to know more then what was in the Heritage Committee Minutes.
September Here- 2 Lines.
October Here- 3 Lines - page 5
November Here- 9 lines Page 3

The question of whether the Town would have purchased the Church without the Windows is not answered however it’s a good indication from the Town approved Heritage Committee Minutes that the Windows were important to them.

Ask yourself this question— What was the goal?– to preserve the Windows from being lost forever right?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 19th, 2008 at 10:01 pm and is filed under General Stuff--, Ajax Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.