Why does the UOC not Agree to Alternate Worship in their Churches?

The next wave of seizures of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church churches forced to search for ways out of the situation so that religious conflicts wouldn’t move into a new phase of escalation. It must be said that among the proposals that have been put forward in the church environment for the last few months, there could be heard really constructive solutions. But there were also those which were only veiled under the compromise. Among the latter, as well, is the idea of alternate service in a particular church of the UOC, which otherwise will be taken over by the raiders of the UOC-KP.
Imagine the following situation: there is a specific location with only one church, which has always been assigned to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Due to various reasons in this village, a new religious community - the UOC-KP, the UGCC or the CEC – is formed. This community (although in our case, this assertion is controversial) partly consists of former members of the UOC, but the community of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church remains preserved (though not in a full body). What, logically, would representatives of a newly formed religious community do first? They would build their religious, primarily liturgical life, by constructing a temple. Today in Ukraine all the denominations, except the UOC-KP, go this way. Gone are the days when Greek Catholics were engaged in church raiding, never did so the Protestants, but the UOC-KP decided that they can do differently: either in form of an ultimatum to make the UOC agree to alternating prayers in the church or seize the church by force, "moving out" its legal owners, which happens more often than not. The UOC-KP supporters’ logic is simple: "We are more numerous, so we're right." However, what would happen if the same logic were turned against them? For example, in the locality where the Ukrainian Orthodox Church followers make the majority, they would come and take away the church of the UOC-KP, or bring them over to alternate worship. How would representatives of the UOC-KP react to such ideas? There is another aspect, which concerns the creation of a new religious community in the village. Somehow, in this or that village / town, where there is a church of the UOC-KP (and sometimes more than one), when a new UOC community is formed, none of its believers comes to the church of the Kiev Patriarchate with a demand to vacate the cult premises for their need or alternate service. Contrary to that, representatives of the UOC-KP even object to the very appearance of the UOC community in a "chosen place", to say nothing of the construction of a new church. In fact, the essence of this matter lies in the basic property relations. We may provide a similar analogy: your house community comes to your apartment with the demand for alternate overnight, because you have a larger and more comfortable bed, which no other tenants have. What would be your reaction to this idea? Hardly positive. If the UOC-KP forms a new religious community, it does not mean that they are automatically granted the right to grab the nearest places of worship - even if the representatives of the UOC-KP constitute the majority. You are creating a religious community? Build a church! Starting a family? Build a house! Everything seems to be quite logical. This problem, however, is an indicator of not only the escalation of interfaith conflict, but legal impotence of state institutions. When the law can not provide the right of ownership to individuals or legal entities, when raiders feel complete impunity, carrying out their dubious activities, few people can feel secure. Today this is a church of the UOC, tomorrow this could happen to someone's private home. Based on materials from the “About the Church” portal Updated Thursday, October 8, 2015, 12:21