Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: RLUIPA loses again
Rick S

Date:
RLUIPA loses again


This case has some similarities to ours - a conditional zoning bid (this case was in a residential zone) by a church rejected:


http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13016


Oregon court upholds rejection of church building plan

By The Associated Press
03.25.04


SALEM, Ore. — The city of West Linn's denial of a church's plan to build a meeting place in a residential zone is consistent with federal land-use laws, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled yesterday.


The opinion reversed the state Land Use Board of Appeals.


The appeals board had decided that the city's rejection of the proposal by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hampered the church's constitutional rights to religious freedom, in violation of a federal law passed in 2000.


Portland lawyer Frank Hunsaker, who represents the church, said the ruling apparently was the first by an Oregon appellate court involving the new federal law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA.


Hunsaker said he hadn't yet talked with his client and had no immediate comment on whether the decision might be appealed to the state Supreme Court.


RLUIPA forbids local government land use restrictions from putting "substantial burdens" on religious freedom unless it's shown that the burden furthers "a compelling government interest."


Residents of Salem's West Linn neighborhood protested the Mormon church's proposal to build a meetinghouse and a 179-space parking lot on a 3.8 -acre parcel surrounded by single-family homes.


The church said the facility would ease crowding in a nearby Mormon chapel.


West Linn allows churches in residential zones under certain conditions, but the city rejected the Mormon church. City officials said the proposed size was too big for a residential zone, that the building wasn't compatible with the area and that proposed buffering wouldn't adequately screen the building and parking lot from nearby homes.


The City Council had claimed that maintaining the quality of residential neighborhoods was "a compelling government interest."


The three-judge Court of Appeals panel said that under the federal law it was up to churches to demonstrate that government has put a major burden on their religious liberty and that the LDS church had not done so.


The court said the land-use board wrongly concluded that the city's action prevented the church from building its meetinghouse.


If the church couldn't find a bigger parcel of land, the court said, it had no reason to believe the city wouldn't approve a smaller or differently shaped building and parking lot.


A Salem church, citing the same federal law, is suing the city in U.S. District Court in Eugene after being refused a zoning exception to allow the church to expand in a historic area where codes don't allow religious institutions.



__________________
Sunshine...

Date:

On a cloudy day! Thanks Rick--

__________________
Batter Up!

Date:
Not similar


This case involved a Residential zone. The Agilent site is not residential. [strike one]

This church was only on about 3 acres, the Agilent site has pver 100 acres and RT ordinances already allow a building the size of which CC proposes on that site. [strike two]

RT argues that the CC proposal is too big for RT, yet development abounds from 80 on up on Greenpond, and the Mega-Mall continues to expand without end. No court in the land will ever buy the argument that RT can't handle a large church. [strike three]

you're out (of arguments).

game over.

__________________
Ted's Shrink

Date:
RE: RLUIPA loses again


game 2:

a school is going on that property.

you lose the series.

__________________
Classic!!

Date:

Ha Ha Ha!!!

Damm right mr CC spin-boy...it's over Johnny!!!!!

__________________
3 game series

Date:
now tied 1-1


Game 3


RT steals church property under eminant domain

CC Sues the pants off of every member of the Planning Board and the School Board.

CC Wins landmark cash settlement from RT.

Homerun. Game over. Series over.

RT can't afford to pay settlement, is forced to hand over the keys to RT to CC leaders.

In a gesture of good will, CC agrees to let RT residents continue to live in the township.



__________________
Karen

Date:
RE: RLUIPA loses again


Now that would indeed be a landmark case! lol

__________________
Dear idiot:

Date:

The property is owned by Agilent dumb@ss...the property will be obtained form them, Church will never have a pot to p!ss in!

The application is going to draggggg onnnnn, while eminent domain will be settled with Agilent.

Game, set, match bozo...

__________________
I AM THE TRUTH

Date:

I wonder if Ireland would like to lick Jesse Jackson's ass clean?

__________________
Ack!

Date:

OMG! I just can't believe what I just read.

__________________
Rick S

Date:

OK Batter up (nice name you got there bud.  I guess you're embarassed about who you support so you don't list your name):


is case involved a Residential zone. The Agilent site is not residential. [strike one]

This church was only on about 3 acres, the Agilent site has pver 100 acres and RT ordinances already allow a building the size of which CC proposes on that site. [strike two]


The case in question was 179 parking spaces on a 3 acre lot surrounded by homes.  140 Green Pond Road is 100+ acres with almost 2000 parking spaces - surrounded on 3 sides by homes.  All a matter of scale. 

RT argues that the CC proposal is too big for RT, yet development abounds from 80 on up on Greenpond, and the Mega-Mall continues to expand without end. No court in the land will ever buy the argument that RT can't handle a large church. [strike three]


Nothing on Green Pond Road is remotely the size of what Christ Church wants to build (big swing coming up).  Plus, Christ Church will look to multiply it's size - as it has shown it is capable of doing.  [Going, going, gone...a home run ]

game over.



__________________
Rick whiffed

Date:

rick buddy, you just made a big wind with all those swings, unfortunately, none of them touched the ball.


You


just


struck


out.



__________________
Rick S

Date:

Thanks for the laugh...I never strike out.


Unfortunately for your cause, you might never even get a chance to come to the plate...


There's no way the pb will approve a project of this size and scope (with the future growth potential)....It's just not going to happen.


You feel the need to go to court - go right ahead - that's your right....Rockaway Township is capable of defending herself.


Game Over.



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard