(blog posting) RLUIPA, Redevelopment, and Eminent Domain
The decision in Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch, rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on November 27, has national implications for religious use and zoning regulations. In its precedent setting 96-page opinion, the Third Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of the City of Long Branch against Reverend Kevin Brown and the Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism in their attempt to establish a church at 162 Broadway within the Broadway Corridor Redevelopment area. However, the court remanded the case to Judge William Walls in the U.S. District Court for further findings on the plaintiff's challenge to the C-1 ordinance, the zoning for the subject property prior to the adoption of the redevelopment ordinance and plan, under RLUIPA's Equal Terms provision. The court was unanimous that the C-1 ordinance violated RLUIPA. This will entitle the plaintiffs to damages, counsel fees, and costs. Read the opinion here.
The federal statute at the heart of the question is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), the most recent congressional effort to protect religious exercise from discrimination through land use regulations. The Equal Terms provision states:
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.
The majority opinion written by senior Judge Jane Roth affirms the entry of summary judgment by Judge William Walls of the U.S. District Court. The dissent, filed by Judge Kent A. Jordan disagreed with the majority regarding the redevelopment plan ordinance. Judge Jordan said that both ordinances failed to treat religious and non-religious assemblies on equal terms and, therefore, violate the very purpose for which the RLUIPA statute was enacted.
Judge Jordan noted that both ordinances, as interpreted by Long Branch, prohibit religious use categorically. Judge Jordan reasoned that, if the majority reading of RLUIPA were correct, local governments could effectively render RLUIPA meaningless. Both the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division argued as amicus in support of Reverend Brown and the Lighthouse Mission. This decision is at odds with other decisions regarding RLUIPA in other circuit courts and may well end up before the United States Supreme Court.
The location of houses of worship, temples, mosques, and evangelical congregations is an issue that comes up frequently in New Jersey. Protracted battles in Rockaway Township ensued over the site selection by Dr. David Ireland, pastor of the 5000-member Christ Church. That church, a predominantly African American evangelical congregation, sought to move from its Montclair location to the former Agilent site in Rockaway. The relocation of the church was vigorously contested by a group of local residents. In Wayne, an Albanian mosque pursued litigation against the township of Wayne because the planning board delayed the plaintiffs land use application.
Underlying these disputes is an undercurrent of racism and prejudice, voiced by objectors who veil their discrimination in terms of traffic, density, environmental issues, and any other legal grounds that can be presented to the courts. RLUIPA is designed to address this, and Judge Jordan referenced the bill's sponsors, Senators Orrin Hatch and Edward Kennedy, who said, "Discrimination against religious entities is a major problem nationwide." Judge Jordan further noted in his dissent:
The City nevertheless defends its unequal treatment of religious assemblies by pointing to the state law that prohibits issuing liquor licenses within a certain distance of religious institutions.* According to the City, if churches were allowed in its Redevelopment Zone, the liquor law would prevent it from turning the Zone into a high-end entertainment district. New Jersey law, however, cannot take the City off the hook for violating RLUIPA. RLUIPA is a federal law, and no state or local government can defend against a charge that it has violated federal law on the basis that its actions were required by state law. Were it otherwise, a state could nullify RLUIPA simply by passing a statute mandating that churches be treated on unequal terms.
*New Jersey state law prohibits the issuance of liquor licenses within two hundred feet of any church. N.J.S.A. § 33:1-76.2.
The Lighthouse Institute for Evangalism looks like another Ireland type of place. Check it out here:
http://www.lighthousemission.com/
Note the predominate
CLICK HERE TO DONATE
I want to know where these so called churches keep their
CLICK HERE TO COLLECT SOME CHARITY
button.
Makes me sick to my stomach. I really gotta start me a church under which to conduct all of my affairs in life. My canon of religious law will declare everything that I touch to be "Holy" and tell the government to keep their grubby little tax collecting hands out of my wallet as a consequence of my new status.
Sounds like a TBD as to who won. RLUIPA is just BAD law. Some politician with a set really needs to launch a movement to get it repealed.
Rat - I'm in the same Real Estate Limbo as you. House has been on the market for 6 mos. now. Only one offer that fell through. One agent candidly told me that a lot of buyers dont want the taxes of RT nor do they want to be down the street from that church. We're FSBO for the winter now. Will try again next spring.
I have received the same input from a real estate agent other than the one that I listed with. The one that I listed with will not make any conjecture as to what the problem is here in RT. I guess you know why - - - I suspect it involves ethics considerations pertaining to his real estate license, but that is just my conjecture. He does, however admit that real estate is selling in other towns in the area, albeit slowly. It is just completely dead in RT.
BTW - there is a new 4000 ft^2 house directly across from cc on Meriden that has seen two contracts come and go in the last three weeks. Both were for under 490 K. I understand that this house has now been lowered to 470 K. Imagine a brand new monster home like that with a 3 car garage going for that kind of money. I suspect that uninformed people are jumping at it based on its price and then learning what they are located across from. My guess is that it will sell for around 400K ultimately. I feel bad for the guy next door who owns a smaller home who was trying to sell it for something around 640K. He paid 666K for it two years ago.
We all just gotta get used to the idea that we are going to have to take a huge financial hit if we want to get out of this place. It took my wife and I a period of mourning to figure that one out, but we are now facing the reality of the grim situation that we are in. Unfortunately for us, we own this joint outright. I wish it had a huge mortgage. If it did, we would just walk away from this place.
