A news item on Friday caught my attention and got me thinking.  This is a brief recounting and reflection on that news item.

The news, from the DailyNewsonline.com, is that Oakfield Community Bible Church (OCBC), a congregation that can be traced back to the First Presbyterian Church, Oakfield, NY, of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), purchased back its property from Genesee Valley Presbytery at public auction for $50,000.  This property contains both the 11,740 sq. ft. church structure and the manse.

This history is, with a twist or two, simple and predictable: First Presbyterian wanted to leave PC(USA) over doctrinal differences, the Presbytery would not let them just take the property with them, after a brief attempt at negotiations the congregation filed a lawsuit for the property, and at trial the property was awarded to the Presbytery under the trust clause.  Apparently the Presbytery decided not to continue using the property themselves and so auctioned it off.  The successor church, now the OCBC was the successful bidder for $50,000.  (There was a bit of bidding drama, check out the news story for more details.)

The one twist in here is that upon separating from the PC(USA) the congregation of First Pres. became the Oakfield Independent Presbyterian Church (OIPC) and a bit later the church split and the majority of the congregation followed the pastor to form OCBC. So, while no longer Presbyterian, OCBC in its membership represents the successor to First Pres.  The remaining members of OIPC decided it was not worth appealing the trial court’s ruling. (Layman article)

So what questions does this raise?

First, for $50,000 did the Presbytery get anywhere near what they should have for the property?  In scanning articles I have not seen the figures for what each side was talking in the brief negotiations.  However, an article in The
Layman a week ago values the property at $398,000 and a comment in the minutes of a special meeting of Presbytery says “No appraisal has been done, but the worth may be greater than $200,000. The property is a valuable asset in the middle of the village.”  The property
does not appear on the town’s 2005
tax rolls, but a residential property very close by had an assessed
valuation of $83,000.  Even if the number in the Layman is a bit high
and we consider the minimum number the Presbytery listed, clearly the selling price at auction was no more than 25% of the
property’s value.  It appears that other bidders at the auction were
only interested in the manse and were willing to bid $45,000-55,000 for
the whole property to get the house.

So, on the one hand the Presbytery appears happy to get the empty building off their hands so they don’t have to put money into maintaining a vacant property.  In a depressed real estate market in a small western New York town they were able to unload a unique parcel of property.  (And I am well aware of the current challenges related to selling a unique parcel.  As chair of the trustees of the Synod right now I have a couple of “interesting” properties that we would like to find buyers for, especially if the offer reflects the value of the property.  One city has offered us naming rights if we donate the property to them for a park.)

But on the other hand, we have to ask the question whether with some patience and work the Presbytery could have gotten more value out of the property.  Yes, it probably would have required carrying it on the books longer and if not used for religious purposes carries the risk of losing tax exempt status.  And I am sure that the Presbytery considered this.  In addition, in defending the litigation they incurred expenses, some of which may have been offset by higher governing bodies or insurance.

On the other side of the equation the congregation is now back in the facility they were using before for what is probably a good deal.  It has been vacant for a while and that carries concerns about the condition but basic upkeep seems to have been preformed.  The flip side of this is that the church has been unsettled with some uncertainty and other arrangements for a couple of years.  And in the auction process they did not have assurance that they would be the successful bidders.

So is this a win-win situation, at least as far as the property is concerned today?  Presbytery gets vacant property off their hands, church gets to use their old facility again for a price that is 25% of the property value.

One does have to wonder if the Presbytery could have gotten more of the value out of the property.  One also has to wonder if a negotiated settlement right at the very beginning may have gotten everyone a reasonable outcome without the expense, frustration and polarization of litigation.

I don’t know what the best answer is here but these are questions that come to mind as I read about the outcome of this property auction.