That's for shuls owned by a congregation board, new members are voted in and they decide to keep the shul open. My question was more about the shteiblach which were owned by the rov/rebbe, what happened after they relocated out of CH, I'm sure they sold their house and shul, was an effort made to buy them off to keep those open as a shul?
I want to carefully touch this topic without causing any trouble or misunderstandings. It's important to know that it's true that the Lubavitcher Rebbe wanted his Chasidim to pray in local shuls to help keep them active. However, the way this advice was followed wasn't always what you'd expect. This isn't questioning the Rebbe's intentions but pointing out that, sometimes, the actions of some Chasidim came off as too forceful and not very considerate to the Rabbonim and owners of the shuls.
An example of this happened with Rabbi Unger's synagogue at 768 Montgomery Street. The way it was taken over didn't seem completely fair, putting a lot of pressure on the original owner and leading to a sale that didn't really benefit him financially. Even though these actions might have been done with the intention to do what the Rebbe wanted, they ended up creating some negative feelings, making us think about the saying המטרה מקדשת את האמצעים (the end justifies the means) and whether it's okay to act this way for a good cause.
