Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-21-2002, 11:31 AM

<a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020117.html" target="_blank">Struggling with Churches as Neighbors: Land Use Conflicts Between Religious Institutions And Those Who Reside Nearby </a>

Quote:

. . . religious organizations recently started to chafe under the land use restrictions when those restrictions applied to their expanded agendas for how their buildings could be used. To that end, they lobbied for and received the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).

Unfortunately, whereas negotiations over land use used to include fair consideration of neighbors' concerns, RLUIPA has now slanted those negotiations sharply in favor of religious institutions. The statute is not only unfair, it is also unconstitutional, for several reasons.

First, this federal takeover of local land use control constitutes an obvious violation of the Constitution's federalism. If land use is not an inherently local concern, then virtually nothing is. Second, RLUIPA also constitutes an establishment of religion on the part of Congress, for it systematically favors religious organizations over their secular neighbors.

The Undue Influence of Religious Lobbyists in Passing RLUIPA

When RLUIPA was the subject of Congressional hearings, no land use official or neighbor to a religious building was ever permitted to testify. Violating the rule against the establishment of religion by the federal government, both political parties knelt before the altar of religious lobbyists. They refused to ask the hard questions about RLUIPA, even after repeated requests to testify from groups like the National League of Cities.

As a result, the hearing record relies on anecdotal accounts of discrimination against religious buildings in land use (there are precious few cases). It also fails to make a substantial inquiry into the negative secondary effects religious buildings and other religious institutions can rain down on their residential neighbors.

In effect, the members of Congress ignored every homeowner in the country (a silent majority if there ever were one) in favor of creating a more favorable climate for religious buildings. Helping such uses is one thing, but Congress went further - permitting religious landowners to ignore the obligation of every land user, to be concerned about effects on neighbors.

I think the odds are that the Supreme Court will overturn this law, for a variety of reasons.

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Mageth · 01-21-2002, 12:04 PM

Even prior to this law, municipalities were limited in their control over Religious land use. There's been a battle going on here in Austin for years between Hyde Park Baptist Church (one of those ultra-expansive school/youth center/entertainment complex churches prominent here in the South, particularly in Texas) and the neighborhood. The church almost always wins the day.

Henrietta · 01-21-2002, 12:56 PM

I think they should have the same rights and responsibilities as other land owners including paying property tax and following zoning laws. If they are going to be removed from the tax base they have got to expect communities to want to limit how much land is exempt from tax. I don't have as much faith in the supreme court right now as you do.

Ysabella · 01-22-2002, 06:30 AM

Quote:

With RLUIPA in their quiver, lawyers representing religious landowners in land use disputes have taken to charging "discrimination" anytime a neighbor objects to more water runoff or to parking lot lights shining into bedroom windows, no matter how many times that neighbor points out that he himself is religious. Land use conflicts that have nothing to do with religion are immediately repackaged as conflicts over religious animus so that RLUIPA and the Constitution can be evoked - to the detriment of honest discussion and true liberty.

I looked at a case recently that my Xtian sister had emailed, and during my searches found all kinds of other cases of such "discrimination." My sister had become convinced that her religious rights were seriously threatened every day in the United States by reading the inflammatory headlines. It's like there's this huge magnanimous ruling that shows the glowing power of the religious lobby, and yet the fundie groups use it to feel oh, so persecuted.

Henrietta · 01-22-2002, 08:25 AM

Maybe this is good. Maybe the churches will be such pains in the butt that a lot of people will lose their empahy for them. The nearby church ticked off my neighborhood and one of my neighbors told me 'that church is just for making money anyway'. A change in attitude since up to that point the neighbors had said the church was a good neighbor.

Grumpy · 01-22-2002, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henrietta:
<strong>I don't have as much faith in the supreme court right now as you do.</strong>

Would you believe Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas were part of the majority that overturned RLUIPA's predecessor, the <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/rfra.htm#un" target="_blank">Religious Freedom Restoration Act</a>? That's why RLUIPA is a more tailored version, attempting to walk the fine line that the SCOTUS left for them. It also explains why left- and right-leaning groups supported RLUIPA: If Scalia is against it, the ACLU must be for it. Which is why the ACLU supported it (IMHO).

Toto · 05-19-2002, 09:23 PM

An update on the status of RLUIPA - about 30 lawsuits have been filed nationwide, 7 of them in California, by churches in attempts to evade local land use regulations, and cities have caved in in many more instances.

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-000035347may19.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifor nia" target="_blank">Church Lawsuits Aim to Sidestep Local Zoning Rules</a>

Quote:

. . .
So-called mega-church proposals are behind many of the lawsuits. The projects are particularly challenging for city planners because they draw thousands of people a week and often require major infrastructure improvements. They are too big for residential neighborhoods, but they don't bring in the sales tax revenue that cities look for in their commercial zones. {not to mention tax revenue - editorial comment inserted.}
. . .

The American Planning Assn., which lobbied against the act[RLUIPA], is now scouring the dockets for an ideal test case to join in the hopes of getting the law stricken down in the courts.

"No one has an absolute right to use property the way they choose," said Vivian Khan, an Oakland planning consultant and member of the association's national legislative committee. "That is what land-use regulation is all about."

Toto · 05-30-2002, 10:43 AM

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000038084may30.story" target="_blank">Another update</a>

This article is titled "Church Finds Broad Support in Battle With Cypress Over Land", but it lists the usual suspects.

Quote:

The Washington, D.C.-based <a href="http://www.becketfund.org/" target="_blank">Becket Fund for Religious Liberty</a> issued a written statement describing the city's move late Tuesday night to take the church's 18 acres by eminent domain as a "stunningly unethical ... abuse of governmental power."

Church leaders labeled the action an affront to the Constitution and an abuse of redevelopment law.
. . .

Despite it all, city officials remain defiant. "Our legal staff is just as confident, if not more confident than the attorneys for Cottonwood, that the law is on our side," City Councilman Frank McCoy said Wednesday.

Another council member also blasted Cottonwood officials before the 11:10 p.m. Tuesday vote for their "malicious" international propaganda campaign.

"Everybody says 'Gosh, how can you stand up against a church?'" Councilman Tim Keenan said. "You need to look at this as a land-use issue and take the church out of it. Everyone needs to follow the rules. I don't see why a church needs special treatment."

The Beckett Fund's version of the case is <a href="http://www.becketfund.org/litigate/Cottonwood.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Toto · 06-02-2002, 10:19 PM

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/03/national/03WORS.html" target="_blank">No-Church Zoning District Faces a Challenge</a>

Quote:

At a Bible study service at the church here on Wednesday night, after two hymns and 45 minutes of lively, earnest, funny and deadly serious talk about the larger questions, the Rev. Chris Keay, the church's pastor, handed out a printed prayer list. He asked his nine congregants to pray for the salvation, spiritual growth and health of the 17 people he listed by name.

He also asked for prayers for "other requests." The flock was asked to pray for Mark, who would like a diesel truck, and for the "Appeal Court Decision on RLUIPA."

. . .

Critics of the law say it is a federal intrusion into matters best left to local governments.

"The question is whether the federal government can micromanage local land use decisions," said Marci A. Hamilton, a law professor who argued the case in which the Supreme Court struck down the earlier statute, on federalism grounds.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-21-2002, 12:04 PM	#2
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Even prior to this law, municipalities were limited in their control over Religious land use. There's been a battle going on here in Austin for years between Hyde Park Baptist Church (one of those ultra-expansive school/youth center/entertainment complex churches prominent here in the South, particularly in Texas) and the neighborhood. The church almost always wins the day.

01-21-2002, 12:56 PM	#3
Henrietta Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: West USA Posts: 380	I think they should have the same rights and responsibilities as other land owners including paying property tax and following zoning laws. If they are going to be removed from the tax base they have got to expect communities to want to limit how much land is exempt from tax. I don't have as much faith in the supreme court right now as you do.

01-22-2002, 08:25 AM	#5
Henrietta Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: West USA Posts: 380	Maybe this is good. Maybe the churches will be such pains in the butt that a lot of people will lose their empahy for them. The nearby church ticked off my neighborhood and one of my neighbors told me 'that church is just for making money anyway'. A change in attitude since up to that point the neighbors had said the church was a good neighbor.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.