At the outset, I want to say that I personally find the latest Supreme Court ruling regarding Eminent Domain to be a deplorable re-writing of the Constitution, (legislation from the bench) but given that, it offers RT an interesting alternative for 140 GPR which would stop this cc mess. Here is a way to take a negative and turn it into a positive for all of us.
I propose that RT take the property by Eminent Domain on the theory that we will loose $630,000.00 per year if a church builds there. Based on the new SC ruling, a town can take a property in order to improve its ability to sustain higher property taxes for the public benefit. Now, don't get nervous; read the rest of it. After we take the property (offer Agilent a reasonable amount for it - - - say a few million bucks) then find a builder that is interested in developing this property into a residential / low impact utilization.
If we sub-divide the property up into 40 x 1 acre lots for luxury homes, we could put, say 40 ea. of 1 million dollar homes there after demolishing the existing structures. A million buck luxary home is taxed at around $20,000.00 per year in RT. That would produce a total tax revenue stream for RT of around $800,000.00 per year.
The argument for this move is legitimate based on this new Constitutional ruling. Presently, the property only produces $630,000.00 and the improvement would produce $800,000.00, an increase in revenues for RT of $170,000.00!
My proposal is totally legal and defensible based on the latest Supreme Court ruling, as abhorant as this ruling may be.
Lets do it now and get rid of the cc (crazy clown) from our lives forever!
The math works out just fine. Consider 40 luxury homes each having 5000 square feet. Assume that each is a Colonial style structure. That would make each homes footprint to be around 2500 square feet. Round it up to 3000 square feet to include the garage. OK on my assumptions?
Then ~
The total ground coverage would be 40 houses x 3,000 square feet per house. That is a total of 120,000 square feet. The existing structure, if memory serves me well is more than double that already at around 285,000 square feet.
So ~
Not only is my proposal legal, and great for the township financially, but it is also "green" in that it will reduce the impervious ground coverage by more than a factor of 2.4 compared to the existing situation, and I am not even calculating the reduction based on the elimination of the parking lots.
Lets say bye to the Circus Clown and move to do something that is actually for the good of our Township, and do it now!
Sounds good to me. Instinctively it's hard to believe that 40 good size homes have less impervious coverage than those buildings but your calculations seem reasonably correct. Traffic impact would probably be less also based on 40 families with 4 or 5 members. The next question seems to be whether property owned by a corporation that is under contract with a church has rights superior to those of private individuals. If those rights are equal but not superior, it would seem that the town could do what you suggest. My lay understanding of RLUIPA is that the intent is to provide churches with equal but not superior rights in land use decisions. If that's correct, why couldn't the town do as you suggest?
Assume 2 adults and 2 offsrping per household each having cars.
Total maximum number of cars would be 4 persons X 40 households = 160 vehicles. That sure is lower than it ever was when HP / Agilent was there. The lowest census when I worked there was 350 and the highest was around 900. 160 is a lighter traffic load then anything in previous history. And, clearly, it is a lot less than would be provided by a 25,000 member church!
As for RLUIPA, that is untested law. The taking of property for improved tax revenues is tested law and stands. Basically, at this point in time, Eminent Domain takes precidence over RLUIPA. That is very clear even though I am not a legal scholar.
The property already has about 0.5 miles of roadway surface, not including the parking lots. I would call that a "wash" against the driveway drain (no pun intended) on impervious coverage allocations (we can do the math if necessary, but right now, I think that is clear to everyone). As for septics, that property has a sewer line running to it. That means the luxury housing development could simply use a small portion of Agilents allocation of sewarage, which would be less than Agilents usage ever was and a hell of a lot less than the Crazy Circus anticipated usage.
And yes, I still also like the idea of LaCrosse Fields. Maybe we can squeeze that onto part of the property. We could make it a condition of sale to the developer to set that up.
I would submit that exploiting the terrible ruling that most of us disagree with for our own purposes would be as bad as the ruling itself. I futher submit that this tact, if used, would strengthen the CC lawsuit.
"I futher submit that this tact, if used, would strengthen the CC lawsuit."
-------------------------
I fail to see how following a tested legal law for our benefit would strengthen the CC lawsuit. Please explain yourself rather than simply making a declarative statement.
I think it reasonable to assume that if the town tried to use an eminent domain law for any commercial project after all the controversey of the proposed CC project, the courts would have reason to question the motives of such an action, thus strengthening CC's case. I think there may be less question for a public project, but there would be questions. I also hope that the state or congress will pass legislation to render this horrible decision by the court moot.
So, just exactly what is your proposed course of action? More of the same old same olde? As I have been saying for two years now, ireland is just going to keep on scaling back until the township is forced to have to accept some plan that he profers - - - maybe for a 500 person church ultimately. If he did that, how could RT possibly say no to it? Then, his foot is in the door and all hell will break loose. He will basically do whatever he wants to do thereafter and take over the township body politic.
As it stands right now, there is no way in hell that this town is going to keep ireland and his circus out, but for an act of G-d. At least I have offered a plan to deal with the situation in a proactive manner. Is your plan simply to pray that he will go away?
Well, I have some news. He is NOT going away. We are going to have to use some very tough medicine here unless we want to have RT to become the Megachurch capitol of NJ.
Furthermore, if you do not like my plan, try offering something else up for the township to work with instead of just being critical.
Lighten up Chicken Little. First of all, I don't care if Dr. Irelend and his flock move in, so long as the scale of the project fits the property and the area, and will continue to do so in the future.I am very much opposed to the CC project as it now stands. It's not about Ireland, it's about the project. I pointed out both some holes in your solution in a pragmatic fashion.Somewhere between the fanatics of both sides of the issue may be a solution.Also, since the morality of many players in this situation seem to be the topic of debate, rightly or wrongly, I also pointed out that exploiting the eminent domain ruling as a legal tool even if you are very much opposed to it shows at the very least a high level of hypocrisy, and perhaps even a level of immorality depending on who is defining that term this week.The ends don't always justify the means.
So far as suggesting a solution, the legal machine is chugging along, however slowly, and we need to put some faith in the system and our officials to serve our intrests well.
I would hope the our town officials have consulted capable legal experts on whether Rational's approach could be successful in thwarting the CC megacomplex. I personally do not believe that its use would be immoral as long as it's effective. I do believe that CC will absolutely take advantage of any legal means of forcing their way onto GPR. To suggest that RT should not do the same seems a bit foolish.
If on the other hand, the legal scholars do not believe that the Rational suggestion would be effective, that's another story. I just hope its considered and evaluated.
I'm not sure that absent that approach, there is any assurance that CC would not scale back to get its foot in the door and later try to expand. If they do try, it may not be all that easy to stop them.
You have offered up nothing but platitudes to the discussion at hand. You are a fool if you think that there is something that will hold back the cc machine. I hope that you are the only one in town that thinks that way; if not, we are toast.
Now, please try again. Offer up a reasonable alternative to mine and then defend it as a method to keep this megamostrosity from taking over the character and politics of our township. If you can not do that, just shut up.
Pie in the sky solutions proposed by someone that would oppose this project if the church had 10 members and services were to be held in a 10 by 12 foot storage shed doesn't in my view offfer any real solution.Throwing a tantrum when someone finds holes in your logic or ethics doesn't really do much for the cause either.If you really do care about this issue, perhaps it's you that should "shut up". I can assume that the rantings of the lunatic fringe may help CC when it comes down to the lawsuit.Did it happen to say on your first grade report card" does not play well with others"?
Simply stated, if CC fits and will continue to fit in the future with binding assurances, let it come.If not, deny the project. That is the goal of the fairminded.
