Hobokenpix: Trinity Church
Posted by: Hoboken411 at 05:00 pm on February 10, 2009
[Continuing the ORIGINAL Hoboken411 "Photo of the Day" series...]
Hoboken Photo of the Day – 2/10/2009
The All Saints Parish (Trinity Church) on 7th and Washington Streets is a beautiful building.
Most of the year, it’s shrouded by giant trees, and hard to get a decent photo of. With a crisp blue sky and bare branches, I took the opportunity to capture the property as best as I could this week.
PS – if you have images collecting dust on your camera or hard drive – send them in for eventual inclusion on Hoboken411! Please state how you’d like to be credited in your email, and a description – if desired!!
Hoboken NJ
53 Responses to ** Hobokenpix: Trinity Church **
February 14th, 2009 |
http://hoboken411.com/archives/5231
Login or Register to reply
February 14th, 2009 |
In response to Tama Murden who said:
There is no questionable background on All Saints and there is no All Saints Real Estate Holding Co. There is Trinity Church used by the parish and the school next door and an empty, unused building unsafe for use known as Holy Innocents Church that would cost a huge sum of money to repair that the parish does not have. The parish did have an endowment at one time but it gave it to buy the land and build the Jubilee Center to serve the poor children of Hoboken’s housing projects and has a huge mortgage on the Jubilee Center.
What the parish does have are vocal opponents who do not like that the parish serves the poor and those who are outcasts in other churches.
Login or Register to reply
February 14th, 2009 |
Oh, the politics of religion…religous freedom(s)…the freedom of some to pay little or no taxes….all the reverends in the news on a regular basis….and the beat goes on
Login or Register to reply
February 14th, 2009 |
Re 42.: Please, just stop, Nick.
Or just start—go back & do sufficient due diligence. Well documented that All Saints had opportunities that it (Rev. Curtiss?) chose to not access, vis a vis preserving Holy Innocents.
And perhaps other mission-areas that have had missed opportunities for funding that’s out there.
Quotes were used for “literary purposes,” in case that escaped you….
Login or Register to reply
February 14th, 2009 |
Login or Register to reply
February 14th, 2009 |
Re 45: A-c, thanks for supporting some of the scrutiny we both suggest…
But you quoted Nick, as if it was me.
For the record, I didn’t write what you excerpted.
Login or Register to reply
February 14th, 2009 |
Sorry Tama.
Thanks!
Login or Register to reply
February 15th, 2009 |
In response to Tama Murden who said:
A simple photo posted here led to vague innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations against the parish. Because I asked what is the basis for the allegations, I am then personally attacked.
Because you say something is “well documented” no one is allowed to question you? Where is this well documented? What opportunities are you referring to? Please enlighten us. Why should we believe you? What is your stake in this?
Then you state “PERHAPS other mission-areas … have …missed opportunities for funding”. What does perhaps mean? Do you have any evidence of this?
Please Tama, just stop or set forth the FACTS.
Login or Register to reply
February 15th, 2009 |
Login or Register to reply
February 15th, 2009 |
Re: 49, I couldn’t disagree more with your notion that a church is not a business. It is a type of business, specifically a non profit, where the mission is both based in
spirituality and community building/outreach. It receives income (whether it be from the tuition their day school charges, grants from when they were involved in the Abbott
program, donations from their congregation, etc). It has employees, pays salaries, etc. Any profits are to be reinvested into the community. They are exempt from paying taxes due to their non profit status. But in the end, they are a business.
I agree– there are plenty of posters who could care less about the poor. But that should be left out of this particular argument given that the 3 people in this string
questioning some of the practices of All Saints are clearly not against helping the poor. For example, see the recent string on the Candy Shoppe, where Tama Murden and Mooshu
defend reaching out to help a local homeless man.
See post #38 re: my perceived mismanagement of Abbott funds. Some additional facts: in one class that I was familiar with, there were only 2 children who qualified for a discounted lunch program. This illustrates that the people in the class were not poor. In fact, one of the children’s parents was a national television personality. (I choose not to get more specific than that, not because I don’t have the facts, but rather because I honestly don’t think the parent is at fault here.) The Abbott system as a whole is/was flawed. Hoboken was designated as one of NJ’s poorer communities, and as a
whole, it probably still is. What I find questionable is that it seems odd that children of higher income households ended up at All Saints, whereas the other two participating
schools ended up receiving lower income households. I’m not saying All Saints did anything illegal, but in the end, it raises questions.
Another example occured when there was a dispute over salary compensation over some of their employees. (I speak as a close friend of one of the people this happened to.) The
gist of it was that some work being performed was compensated as part of an overall salary. As a result of an audit, it was discovered that part of the work performed should have been compensated at a separate hourly basis. As a result, the compensation structure was adjusted going forward, but not adjusted retroactively for the time the mistake was occuring. In the end, it was not worth the time/money to pursue any legal action. If legal action had been pursued, it’s quite possible All Saints would have won the dispute. I’m not a labor law expert. But I still have a right to find some of their actions to be questionable.
One final example: the friend in the above example was given a verbal salary offer when first offered the job. When the written contract was given, the salary was 5% less. The explanation was that the original offer was no longer in the budget. Yes, that’s their right– verbal offers mean nothing from a legal standpoint– but it doesn’t speak well of
the way their employees are treated.
All 3 of my examples are specific to the school, not the church itself. But the church runs the school.
I happen to work for a non profit, myself. When we switched retirement providers, a year after the fact it was discovered that something like $20 had accidentally not been contributed to the new account. So, they not only added that money back, but went through painstaking trouble to figure out the 80 cents in interest I (and a hundred other employees) lost as a result. Were they legally obligated to fix this? Not sure, but it was the right thing to do.
Sorry for being long winded, but you wanted specifics.
For the record, I bring all of this up for one reason: just because an organization (whether it be a church, our local government, etc) is supposed to ALWAYS have our best
interest at heart, does not mean it always does. I write none of this to pick on All Saints. As long as this post is, I’m sure someone else could write 30 pages on all the good they do in our community. But ultimately, a church is run by people– people capable of making mistakes.
Login or Register to reply
February 15th, 2009 |
RE 48.-49.: This is my last response to you, Nick.
And for the record, you excerpted previous posts incorrectly.
Check the transcripts from the ZBA hearings for Holy Innocents. But I imagine you were at those meetings, anyway, so heard the testimony. Perhaps you might want to refresh what seems like your selective memory….
No one is maligning the good works All Saints has accomplished. There are many.
Login or Register to reply
February 15th, 2009 |
Re 50.: Thank you!
Login or Register to reply
February 15th, 2009 |
Login or Register to reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.