Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 
The "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Board -> Rockaway Township Free Speech -> "Faith" at NJ.CON
Post Info TOPIC: "Faith" at NJ.CON
RTconcern


Status: Offline
Posts: 350
Date:
"Faith" at NJ.CON
Permalink  


Did you know there is a message board called "faith" on NJ.com? I came across it this morning. These posts may be long, but well worth the read.


This is what open use of a message board can be. Do you see that people have different opinions, yet nobody called anyone names? No posts appear to be deleted and input is being shared!


8832. Your thoughts please


by MCwatch, 12/26/04 11:02 ET


Hello, I am here to ask your insight on a matter currently on going in your area.


In Rockaway Twp a 'mega' church is seeking to build a multi purpose campus. They wish to build this 400,000 square foot structure with seating for over 2500 in the main sanctuary, 400 in the small chapel, fellowship hall for 600, k-5 school for 500, a gym, s fitness center, locker rooms, sepertate rooms for bible instruction for adults, TV and radio broadcast room, administrative offices, book store, youth area for 400, and more.


The parking is slated for 1500 spaces, of which 275 are in an underground garage and 140 on a parking deck. They currently have 2 buildings with approximately 35,000 sq. ft. of space.


All of this is proposed for land that is in the core region of the highlands. The property is between 2 trout streams and the building would be within 200 feet of one and 350 of the other. This is on a small road called Green Pond Rd., a one lane county route. Of the 107 acres they wish to purchase, 50+ are wetlands. The property is surrounded on 3 sides by residential housing.


This house of worship is currently located 30 miles away from Rockaway in Montclair. The church has no members in Rockaway Twp and only a handful of members in Morris County.


The community has extreme concerns over this plan and feels the plan is just too big for the area. The house of worship, who claims to have membership of 5000 feels they have every right to move wherever they want, regardless of the impact on the community.


The land is currently owned by a company and pays over $630,000 in taxes.


This sum will need to be made up by the residents of the township.


Do you think that the community should look the other way and not be concerned with the environment, the traffic, and loss of taxes? Do you think the house of worship should seek a location that is closer to its membership?


Do you think the house of worship should look for an alternative location, that fits the community and church needs?


 


 


Click to view these responses


Why Not.. by Tarostar, 12/26/04 Not far from me by gpturner, 12/26/04 I agree it sounds... by Uhuru, 12/26/04 Meetings by gpturner, 12/26/04 MCwatch by timeshare, 12/26/04 Thanks by MCwatch, 12/26/04 Thanks for the update by Uhuru, 12/26/04 That's interesting by gpturner, 12/26/04


> misleading information by MCwatch, 12/27/04 If they were not... by


ElMaximo, 12/27/04 This can only be.... by 1CEN2RI0N, 12/27/04 8832.1.


Why Not..


by Tarostar, 12/26/04 11:47 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/26/04


... attend the County Comission meetings and/or Zoning Board meetings to launch and voice protests?


Besides, the affected revenues should incite the towns to object, no?


8832.2. Not far from me


by gpturner, 12/26/04 15:01 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/26/04


I'm in Rockaway too and the church would be built only a few miles from my house. Unfortunately, it appears this will be a reality although the church would have to scale back the scope of the project due to the Highlands restrictions. But not by much from what I understand.


The problem isn't the church; it's our town that had dicked around for too long by not aggressively negotiating with the company for the land and the company ultimately made the deal with the church.


The church claims that the lost tax revenue would be more than made up by the economic boost from the estimated 5,000 members attending the church, the boost estimated to be in the millions. I'm skeptical of their claim but it's really hard to speculate on the amount of church benefits.


I have a friend who's a member of a local group opposing the project. She said it's been an uphill battle and the odds aren't going their way.


Particularly in light of publicity favoring the project.


If the town attempts to change the zoning of that piece of land to freeze out the church, ACLU will file a lawsuit against the town. So even the ACLU is on the church's side (how about that, grateful?).


Personally it doesn't bother me. What's one more church to the 17 we already have in the area? I've lived in this very conservative town for almost 20 years and I'm still as liberal as ever and no one's ever run my family out of town. My family loves it here and the public schools are excellent; it's a great location one of the state's bigger malls and shopping centers with easy access to the major highways. Plus we have a top-notch police force and one of the best public libraries in the county.


Not to mention terrific fishing waters and hunting grounds!!! I ain't going nowhere, new mega-church or not.


8832.3. I agree it sounds monstrous


by Uhuru, 12/26/04 15:23 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/26/04


It's a big problem. I agree with Tarostar that you should go to the Planning and Zoning meetings and lodge your protest to the development.


However, one problem is that churches are considered "inherently beneficial" under state Municipal Land Use Law and it's very hard to deny them a zoning variance because of this. It sounds from gpturner's comment that the town has not handled this well and it may be too late to stop it.


8832.3.1. Meetings


by gpturner, 12/26/04 17:21 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/26/04


Already we have had several public meetings on this issue. Packed houses each time. However, the church's legal team has done an excellent job presenting its client's case. Church-financed independent traffic and environmental studies were done and all seem on the up and up. Even the town's DA conceded that they have an airtight case. The only real issue may be church (hence "mega") size but even that's somewhat shaky from the town's viewpoint because ACLU may warn of showing possbile bias. Plus there's that problem of state recognition of a church or any place of worship being a "inherently beneficial" as you stated, Uhuru.


 


 


8832.4. MCwatch


by timeshare, 12/26/04 16:57 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/26/04


This industry is a bad idea for that area. It's like putting a mega mall on sensitive land. The ground cover alone is obscene.


See if someone has contacted Green Acres in Trenton, or some form of county government--like a parks commission, to puchase the land instead of the god squad. As a resident, I'd go to every meeting, voice every concern and be sure that non-religious activities are fully taxed. There's some great brownfields not too far from Montclair where they can continue the lord's work.


 


 


8832.4.1. Thanks


by MCwatch, 12/26/04 18:32 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/26/04


Interestingly some of your answers are a bit confusing. From my studies nearly all residents oppose the project. The Church has changed its plans at least 3 times, all due to problems with it. The ACLU has nothing to do with this matter, nor will they, unless it is on the side of the residents.


I was asked here "why not" the fact this is slated for wetlands on property that provides water to much of the state. The Sierra Club has signed a proclaimation opposing the project.


Is it not our work on earth to help protect Gods creation?


Further, I have been working closely with the group opposing the plan. I know for a fact they are very sure this will never happen, they have many facts on there side including environmental and traffic issues. Not to mention the fire issues. At the last planning board meeting it came out that the fire expert for the Mega called the fire dept of Rockaway Twp names and claimed on he knew how to fight fires. That was a very disturbing turn of events.


Rockaway Twp Resident have come out in record numbers to 10 planning board meetings thus far.


Thank you for your input.


8832.4.1.1. Thanks for the update


by Uhuru, 12/26/04 21:06 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/26/04


I'm glad to hear that there are a number of entities opposing this development. Perhaps the wetlands aspect will override the "inherently beneficial" label from the Municipal Land Use Law. Will keep my fingers crossed for Rockaway. I agree, it would be much better for it to be on a brownfield instead of an environmentally sensitive area. I also wonder why a church would want to move so far from its original location and expect its congregation to follow. Seems odd.


 


 


8832.4.1.2. That's interesting


by gpturner, 12/26/04 22:27 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/26/04


I really do hope you're right that the project will never be approved but that's not the impression I'm getting. I know most of us residents are as opposed to this project as I am but there's not necessarily that type of optimism that it will go away.


I know there's been lots of conflicting information being set forth by both sides that's difficult to figure out the real truth. The opposing group has been particularly aggressive in altering certain critical information in the hopes of turning some "on the fence" and undecided residents against the church (my friend in the group admitted as such).


I really do hope you're right and it will be ultimately rejected in favor of the town but I really wonder....Still I can't stand the thought of 5,000 out-of-towners flooding our streets every Sunday...ugh!


 


 


8832.4.1.2.1. misleading information


by MCwatch, 12/27/04 10:45 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/27/04


I can tell you that the opposition group has given no information that is intentionally misleading. I have worked with groups around the country who have 'issues' with Megas. I do not get involved in cases where it is clear that there is bias or underhanded dealings on behalf of those opposed.


Some megas have found homes that suit them and the community with little problems. Others like this one have been bullies and have issued threats.


In this case the entire planning board was threatened with a law suit if they do not approve the project, this with only 1 planning board meeting heard. Now that 9 other meetings have been held it is clear that they do not even have a final plan yet prepared. How your DEP issues an exemption based on this is very fishy.


Churches that "threaten" communities with leagal action as they have are bullies. I am sorry but I do not find the actions of this mega in line with Christian teachings.


 


 


8832.5. If they were not "Christian"


by ElMaximo, 12/27/04 2:59 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/27/04


would you question it?


This is a "Christian" country (as evidenced by the last election). If you don't accept that, we will make our deal with the Mohammedans (as God promised them: Ishmael will be the Prince of a great people). Which is worse? Pick your evil...


 


 


8832.6. This can only be....


by 1CEN2RI0N, 12/27/04 8:37 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/27/04


resolved thru the political process, unfortunately.


These wetlands, do they affect any tributaries say that leads into a watershed? Something to think about if there's going to be landscaping, etc. with concerns about runoffs. If the wetlands are near a river or tributary find out if there's a Riverkeeper you can get on your side.


Good luck.


8832.6.1. Yes


by MCwatch, 12/27/04 10:49 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/27/04


The Sierra Club has signed on opposing the project. From what I understand the rivers run from one reservoir to another reservoir and sit on land that has a town well.


Thank you for your interest.


 


 


8832.4.1.2.1.1. Excellent news


by gpturner, 12/27/04 11:02 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/27/04


Thanks for the information - this was as detailed as i've gotten regarding this project.


I agree that the church has been a bit of a bully and do hope they reap what they sow - meaning they have to find another to town to sucker to letting them build their new church.


Clearly this church hasn't exactly been Christ-like in their dealings with RT in my opinion either. But then very few evangelical churchs are in any case. They are arrogant and act superior with their almighty - though false - morals.


Another reason why I'm glad I'm not a conservative Christian or even a Christian, period. Too much hypocrisy and egocentrism for my taste.


8832.4.1.2.1.1.1. Brings back memories


by gpturner, 12/27/04 11:14 ET


Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/27/04


...of our town's victorious battle against the proposed (garbage) transfer stations on Snake Hill Road in the late 1980s - not far from the backside of White Meadow Lake near Erie Ave. Yet another project that threatened our environmentally-sensitive water aquifiers and defeated thanks to organized opposition by our residents.


We have a strong environmentally-sensitive community that will rise up and fight against projects that could destroy or damage our local environment.


We have so many locals willing to be activists to protect our many acres of forests, rivers, and lakes. I love this town!

__________________
Protect our waters, we all live downstream
RTconcern


Status: Offline
Posts: 350
Date:
Permalink  




8832.6.2. My view
by transwoman, 12/27/04 12:30 ET
Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/27/04

I think there is a lot of misinformation on both sides. For example, how much traffic did the office complex on that site generate? And if the office complex was already there, how could a church create more of an environmental threat then the office building it is replacing? (And I am asking this seriously, I don't have any answers).

And to the church, how can having a 5000 member church where you can assume that probably at least a good percentage would come for services, not have impact on traffic? And how is it that they think that they should have special dispensation from the highlands preservation laws that cover this area?

The tax issue to me is kind of irrelevent, because the town proposed as an alternative building a school on the property or making it a set aside area, for a park or something of that type, neither of which would pay taxes *shrug*.

And I also suspect some of the opponents may be fearful because the church in question is predominantly black. I don't know whether people are afraid that church members will bring crime (kind of outrageous if that is true, since churchgoing people tend not to be crime lords (well, okay, if this was an RCC church from certain areas of NYC, maybe *lol*) or maybe they are afraid that members will settle in the area.

I think some of the fear is also that this is an evangelical, fundamentalist church who they might suspect will actively be trying to convert residents of the town to their beliefs....(and if soliciting laws allow it, people might not want to be bothered by aggressive representatives of the church going door to door, if they in fact do that).

And the church from what I have read has been pretty arrogant, they have told the town they will bankrupt them in court if the town challenges their plans, and their architect has more then once submitted plans with elements 'mysteriously' missing from earlier plans included, and there is ambiguity in just what the church plans for the site. And when concerns have been broached that seem legitimate (over things like parking, traffic, sewerage and fire protection [the original plan called for a steeple that was huge, and building density that could have outstripped local firefighting services ability to handle] the church resubmitted plans that did little to adress real concerns and basically said "take this or else".

I suspect this one will end up in the courts, to determine who has the more valid case, and I suspect the environmental impact is going to be the biggie, as this site lies in the middle of a very sensitive area and is covered by the highlands bill. I also think that the opponents do have some points to make about the environment and traffic (the tax issue is moot to me)but that there are also other issues that are driving their opposition as well, issues with the type of church and the membership. And yes, I think the church is betting that might makes right, they were pretty foolish to buy property in an environmentally fragile area and not expect opposition and they have dealt with arrogance with concerns raised about their plans or in suggestions to make it acceptable.


 






8832.6.2.1. Where to start?
by cheaptrickCC, 12/27/04 15:52 ET
Re: Your thoughts please by MCwatch, 12/27/04

transwoman - the plans call for removing over 1 million squre feet of soil in order to build an underground parking garage (minimum parking can only be met this way). This is just one major issue - they also pulled a fast one on the NJ DEP by requesting an "exemption" from the new Highlands regs - believe it or not, they failed to mention over 100,00 square feet of plans and the undergroung parking garage. Unbelievable what is being proposed, and the pr cut-up of our town and it's residents has been nasty and vile on the churches behalf...take a look at the Rockaway forum on this board - you will have to sift through a lot of pr spin, but you can glean the truth through the bunk so to speak.



__________________
Protect our waters, we all live downstream
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
The "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Board -> Rockaway Township Free Speech -> "Faith" at NJ.CON
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard