Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What was in his contract to pay the percentage towards the cost of public services such as fire and policing. The obligation in which he tried to get out of by selling the business for ten dollars even though the change of ownership contravention his contract. When one signs a contract to obtain funds or tax concessions, the party receiving the funds gas an obligation to fulfill their part of the contract. Perhaps you did not think it was important enough to read the links to news articles and the government's position.
And for the other side of the story, folks:
Quote:
Unfortunately, much misinformation and many falsehoods have been disseminated by reporters and bloggers about the Ark Encounter and its relationship with the Williamstown city council and a safety tax the council imposed on the Ark.
The Ark has never stated it would not pay into the fund.
In frequent discussions with the city over the last three months, Ark Encounter leadership had proposed that the fee be capped, and recently suggested a maximum of a half million dollars per year. Ark representatives made it clear that it had concerns about the fairness of the city ordinance, for it makes the Ark Encounter bear almost the entire load for the increased funding to cover Williamstown’s budget for police, fire, and EMS. This is a city of 4,000 residents.
Ark Encounter leadership has agreed to meet the requirement of the ordinance. Since July 1, the Ark has been adding 50 cents to each ticket purchase, to meet the requirement of the ordinance. Ark officials have tried to negotiate what they believed was a fair approach, rather than an open-ended one, to the safety tax, and still meet the city’s needs.
The filing for an exemption as a religious non-profit (as permitted in the ordinance), was done in an attempt to get the county to change the wording as it currently stands, which would exempt the Ark Encounter. It was not to avoid paying its fair share, as some articles have suggested.
The Ark was offering to pay up to $500,000 a year into the safety fund. The city rejected the offer.
To date, more than one million guests have visited the Ark, yet thankfully, calls for emergency services—to both Williamstown and Dry Ridge—have been few in number, averaging about 2 per week. It should also be noted that a user fee is often charged to an individual’s personal insurance for the cost of local medical emergency services’ response to the Ark.
There has been much false speculation about the matter over a deed. The Ark Encounter, LLC, operates as a non-profit because it is wholly owned by a non-profit (the LLC is a pass-through entity for tax purposes), which is in turn owned by non-profit Answers in Genesis. To resolve any issues over the recent change in title for the Ark Encounter property, the property has been conveyed back to the Ark Encounter, LLC, and that deed has been recorded.
Grant County has benefitted enormously from Ark tourism. In Dry Ridge, many hotels, restaurants, and other tourist-related businesses are flourishing. In a spirit of cooperation, we encourage the city of Williamstown to work with more hotel developers and restaurant brands to build in the area. For its part, when Ark staff attend various civic functions, they frequently encourage entrepreneurs to build in Williamstown.
Of course, as long as the narrative is out there that Ken Ham is doing wrong, the atheists apparently have no interest in getting all the facts straight.
Of course, as long as the narrative is out there that Ken Ham is doing wrong, the atheists apparently have no interest in getting all the facts straight.
Sure sounds like you're saying that handing off million-dollar assets for $10 to a paper company that just so happens to be owned by one's spouse is the act of an upstanding pillar of the community. Instead of, y'know, the act of fraudulent conveyance it so very much resembles.
FFS, even AiG has to admit that yes, the transaction was an attempt to strongarm the city government:
Quote:
The filing for an exemption as a religious non-profit (as permitted in the ordinance), was done in an attempt to get the county to change the wording as it currently stands, which would exempt the Ark Encounter.
And it failed, because - ooops - that yummy $17 million tax exemption was put in jeopardy. Greedy and stupid.
Quote:
It was not to avoid paying its fair share, as some articles have suggested.
"Fair share" as defined by whom, I wonder?
Quote:
The Ark was offering to pay up to $500,000 a year into the safety fund. The city rejected the offer.
Of course, as long as the narrative is out there that Ken Ham is doing wrong, the atheists apparently have no interest in getting all the facts straight.
Besides the fact that Answers in Genesis is not considered by many to be a reliable source, it is Ken Ham's web site. That's not a place to get accurate information about Ken Ham.
As a matter of fact, about as many CD members laugh at AiG as laugh at CARM.
Besides the fact that Answers in Genesis is not considered by many to be a reliable source, it is Ken Ham's web site. That's not a place to get accurate information about Ken Ham.
As a matter of fact, about as many CD members laugh at AiG as laugh at CARM.
And why should I consider pro-atheist sources to be a reliable source?
And why should I consider pro-atheist sources to be a reliable source?
Are you claiming that the city council and reporters are all pro atheist, whatever that means. According to the city Hamm offered only half of what was expected. Besides how is transferring ownership part of a negotiations ? I am sorry but from the city accounts, and the fact that Hamm quickly changed the ownership back to its original terms in order to comply with the existing agreement. I would say the same if it was a for profit business, a sports team, a cultural organization or an atheist park. Hamm was trying to avoid paying what he agreed to pay and I do not care if he claims elsewhere on his Web site.
The city had given him grants so not sure why you think they ate pro atheist. But actually a government should be pro atheist, pro Christian, pro Jewish etc as they do actually represent each and every individual within their community. Not giving in to the Christian majority on everything does not make them anti Christian either. 8f Hamm wanted to renegotiate he should have done it up front without a ten dollar land transfer in my opinion. He might of had legitimate reasons for doing it but it was a violation of his agreement and I would think that good Christians and conservatives should agree that a person should honour their agreements.
And why should I consider pro-atheist sources to be a reliable source?
You providing "evidence" from a source that is in fact the person we are talking about, is like when police departments hold internal investigations and come to the conclusion that they did nothing wrong.
Besides the fact that Answers in Genesis is not considered by many to be a reliable source, it is Ken Ham's web site. That's not a place to get accurate information about Ken Ham.
As a matter of fact, about as many CD members laugh at AiG as laugh at CARM.
Why isn't it? Should I not believe a word you say about yourself?
And why should I consider pro-atheist sources to be a reliable source?
Jeff
On second thought yes I am bias against Ken Hamm. He has blatantly misquoted scientists, claimed things in published papers said things that were not in them and so forth. This does not mean that I would never believe a thing he said but I certainly would not take him as an unbiased source for what he did or didn't do. I also assume that the city went through their legal department. The speed of Ham's retreat leads me to assume that he tried a bluff to get out if paying, was called on it and made a story to cover his actions.
Not sure why you think the folks in town should pay even more of his expenses.
You providing "evidence" from a source that is in fact the person we are talking about, is like when police departments hold internal investigations and come to the conclusion that they did nothing wrong.
In other words, Ken has no right to defend himself and dispel the lies against him. Again, the only thing I see here is atheists projecting their deeply rooted hatred of Christians onto this public venture. So much outrage over a park attraction yet none of you batted an eye about the pastor getting rape and death threats. That says a LOT and it's scary.
On second thought yes I am bias against Ken Hamm. He has blatantly misquoted scientists, claimed things in published papers said things that were not in them and so forth. This does not mean that I would never believe a thing he said but I certainly would not take him as an unbiased source for what he did or didn't do. I also assume that the city went through their legal department. The speed of Ham's retreat leads me to assume that he tried a bluff to get out if paying, was called on it and made a story to cover his actions.
Not sure why you think the folks in town should pay even more of his expenses.
Please show me where a single taxpayer dollar went directly to pay for the park. Got the documentation?
The city agreed to give Ken tax breaks because it was an investment in the community. Locals businesses are getting revenue thanks to Ken. It also sounds like Ken is pretty much paying for the city's ENTIRE public safety operating costs by charging 50 cents extra per ticket. 50 cents times thousands of tickets a day adds up a good bit. Sounds to me like the folks in town and the city are getting a pretty good deal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
