Many of us probably know that our church and the Channing-Murray Foundation have a shared history. Some of us will know that that history hasn’t always been smooth. And a few of us have first-hand knowledge of just how exceptionally challenging the second half of the Twentieth Century was for people who loved this church or Channing-Murray or both.

I’m in the probably small cohort who knew nothing until I read about it in the archives. I’ve shared some of what I learned about the relationship between UUCUC and Channing-Murray in enUUs articles about various long-range and strategic planning exercises in the 1960s and 1980s, and in some excerpts from the writings of ministers and other church leaders.

Last week, I was in the archives looking for documents from the 1990 dissolution of the relationship between UUCUC and Channing-Murray. That was a sad time. So much anger, grief, and sorrow. The result of the split wasn’t as complete as perhaps either party wished, as we are tied together still by an agreement that lets Channing-Murray use the building that UUCUC still owns. A break, but not a clean break.

While searching for one thing, I found another equally interesting set of materials. I came across a set of papers from the 1960s that primarily address property negotiations between the University of Illinois, the Channing-Murray Foundation, and UUCUC. The property under discussion was 1209 W. Oregon, Urbana, the home for Channing-Murray. UUCUC was involved because there was one minister for both organizations (at the time of this negotiation, Rev. John A. Taylor), because we had merged in 1957 and were attempting to be “one great liberal church,” and because any decision about the property would ultimately be made by its owner, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Urbana Champaign.

The first papers in the packet, dated in November 1965, discuss how to convince the University that an eight-story, “high-rise” building at 1209 W. Oregon (the corner of Oregon and Mathews) would be a good thing. The discussion was necessary because the University was threatening to exercise eminent domain over the property. The Channing-Murray response to the University’s plan to condemn the building was two-fold. First, the leaders of Channing-Murray and UUCUC reached out to lawyers, other universities, the UUA, and real estate experts. Second, they developed a 6-point defense to present to the University. 1) Channing-Murray makes “an invaluable contribution to the life of the campus.” 2) the new building would satisfy an unmet, vital campus need, e.g., close-to-campus housing for active and emeritus faculty, space for a faculty club, etc. 3) the University was fine with letting Channing-Murray stay as long as the building was not “converted to other uses.” 4) other churches got to do it. 5) we just want the air rights above our building (plus a below-ground garage). 6) UUCUC is entitled to the “highest and best use” of the land, just like any owner of property would be. 

Another approach during this time to utilizing the land was a proposal by Barr & Squires Realtors for a ground-lease to run between 77 and 99 years. Most of that communication with the realtors and the Boards of Channing-Murray and UUCUC dealt with the money, the size of the land and the proposed building (up to 10 stories in this iteration), and some specifics on how Channing-Murray would use its portion of the building, with the balance being rented to University-adjacent tenants. 

These proposals had legs, at least among the Boards of the two churches. On December 6, 1965, UUCUC passed a Resolution about the “Development of the Chapel Site on Oregon Street.” On December 13, 1965, a Policy Statement was issued by Channing-Murray in furtherance of that Resolution. “The Executive Board plans to negotiate a long-term lease or other arrangements subject to congregational approval leading to the construction of  an attractive, multiple-use building at the Oregon Street property, incorporating therein a chapel and other space and facilities for the maintenance of the religious activities of the Channing-Murray Foundation. Implicit in this plan, is that the ownership of the property will be retained by the church.” 

I have not yet found any records for the progress of this plan between December 1965 and March 3, 1966 when things really heated up. On that date, Rev. Taylor wrote to Donald C. Neville, head of the University’s Physical Plant, stating that “no thought has, or can be, given to the sale of the property to the University or any other party.”