Catholic san Francisco Northern California’s Weekly Catholic Newspaper
Earthquake retrofitting cost tops $40 million, with more expenses to come By Maurice Healy More than $40 million has already been spent to bring Catholic churches and schools into compliance with San Francisco’s Unreinforced Masonry Building (UMB) Ordinance. The San Francisco Ordinance was enacted in 1991, two years after the devastating Loma Prieta Earthquake of Oct. 17, 1989. Also on the drawing board are UMB-related retrofitting costs of an additional $13.5 million The $40 million in retrofit costs already spent includes work on six churches and three schools. Retrofitting at a half-dozen churches: Old St. Mary’s – California and Grant; St. Boniface — Golden Gate near Leavenworth; St. Dominic – Steiner at Bush; St. Paul — Church Street between 29th and Valley; Notre Dame des Victoires — Bush
between Stockton and Grant; and St. Patrick — Mission between Third and Fourth; now totals more than $32 million. These retrofits were completed between 1992 and 2003. Additional costs amounting to nearly $8 million include demolition of earthquake damaged buildings and the $5.1 million construction of a new St. Paul Elementary School completed in 1999, a $2.1 million cost for school upgrades at St. Boniface, and $600,000 to retrofit Our Lady of Guadalupe church for temporary use by St. Mary’s Chinese Day School. Replacing St. Mary Chinese Day School on a permanent basis is an innovative venture with city and federal agencies. The new construction at Broadway and Kearney will include senior housing, a full
Interior of National Shrine of St. Francis of Assisi, San Francisco.
RETROFITTING, page 6
(CNS PHOTO FROM REUTERS)
President calls for constitutional amendment protecting marriage
President Bush speaks to the nation during his State of the Union address in Washington Jan. 20.
The following comments were delivered by President George W. Bush from the White House Feb. 24: Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage. In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.
In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty. After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist PROTECTING MARRIAGE, page 6
INSIDE THIS WEEK’S EDITION News-in-brief. . . . . . . . . . 4-5 Wedding Guide . . . . . . . . 7-9 Catholic voices. . . . . . . . . 12 Scripture reflections . . . . . 14
FIRST SUNDAY OF LENT FEBRUARY 29 February 27, 2004
Datebook . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Deaf seminarian teaches deaf children
Preserving Missions
Anniversary Mass. . . . . . . 18
~ Page 9 ~
~ Pages 10-11 ~
www.catholic-sf.org
FIFTY CENTS
VOLUME 6
•
No. 8