BishopAccountability.org
	SF Vs. the Catholics, Round One By Rachel Buhner San Francisco Bay Guardian June 19, 2009 http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2009/06/sf_vs_the_catholics_round_one.html The highly anticipated showdown between the Roman Catholic Archdiocese and the San Francisco Assessor-Recorders Office came to head June 16th in the Atrium conference room located at One South Van Ness. At stake is millions of dollars in revenue to the city, and perhaps the question of whether the Catholic Church will be able to hide hundreds of millions in assets from sexual abuse victims and other litigants. Arguing in front of the Transfer Tax Review Board, the legal counsel for both the RCA and the Assessor-Recorder's Office presented their respective cases with minimal theatrics. However, with the city estimating the total property values of the transferred parcels ranging anywhere from $210 million to $1.25 billion, and the potential transfer tax payout to be somewhere between $3 and $15 million – on top of increased property taxes as the properties are reassessed -- there was clearly at a lot at stake for both parties. Each side began by offering arguments for and against the payment of the transfer taxes, with little new information being offered beyond previous filings. Using PowerPoint presentations, intricate graphs and convoluted Canon Law citations, the counsels presented their reasoning as to why the taxes are owed, or why the RCA should be exempt. While both the Assessor-Recorder's Office and the RCA agreed that the transfers in question took place among legal and distinct entities, the obvious disagreement continued to be if this triggers the payment of what could potentially be the second largest transfer tax in the history of San Francisco, as well as property reassessments at significantly higher levels than they're at now, meaning more property taxes for the city. One topic at the heart of the discussion was the issue of sexual abuse lawsuits, and how the transfers of church property could potentially be an attempt by the Archdiocese to protect its assets from litigants. While the counsel representing the RCA called the matter "irrelevant and a distraction," the board continued to press the issue. When asked if there is a liability shield that now exists because of the reorganization that didn't exist before, the counsel struggled to provide an answer. This noticeably struck a sore spot with the RCA legal team, which refused to give a direct yes or no response. "That calls for legal speculation," one RCA lawyer said. "And we can't speculate." Another point of interest came when the board, comprised of Amy Brown, Director of Real Estate, George Putris, representing the City Tax Collector, and city Controller Ben Rosenfield, welcomed comments from the public. Three people, all associated with the RCA in some way or another, individually spoke to the board regarding why they believed that the transfer taxes should not be ordered, and the ways in which these taxes would harm various diocesan schools, churches and programs. Monica Scannell, associate director of the Office of Public Policy and Social Concerns for the Archdiocese, read a statement on behalf of Iftekhar Hai, president of the United Muslims of America Interfaith Alliance, which simply stated that he did not support the order for payment of the transfer tax dollars. Next came Nick Andrade, who spoke on behalf of the Catholic Charities Board, claming that if the board were to determine that the RCA owed these taxes that it would severely affect the ability to maintain low costs for rent, costs and tuition to already struggling church entities. Lastly, Tom Dooher, President of St. Finn Bar Catholic School, pleaded with the board to "think of the kids", as his school serves low-income residents of the Outer Mission. "My fear is that if this goes one way that our community will suffer," he concluded. As the hearing adjourned for lunch, it became quite clear that the Board would not arrive at a decision that afternoon, and potentially not for at least two more weeks due to other prescheduled hearings. With both the RCA and the City counsels still left with hours of testimony, the chances of the issues being resolved in a timely manner continued to diminish as each hour passed. So the hearing was continued to next month. Check the Guardian later for more updates.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.