Hey guys... just a few thoughts regarding this

Lakewood church went from 10,000 people to 30,000 people in the last 5 years, although over 50,000 showed up at the new site when it opened (churches advertize too).

How are the growth projections figured?

Largely from a financial end, since it involves bank financing.  The standard "industry figure" is $ 1000 per year per attendee & then the amount of the project should not exceed 2.5 times that number.

In Lakewoods case, they had 30,000 people X 1000 per person = 30 million per year. 2.5 times that = 75 million which was their initial budget. Not surprisingly, they went 20 % over to 90 million, which put them at 3 times the "industry standard", but that probaly wasn't a tough sell when you consider the growth potential of the new facility.

In CC's case with 5000+ people, that would suggest approx 5 million+ per year in income which I think was the number tossed around on this forum. That would translate to a estimated total project cost of 12.5 million. Since they expect to spend approx. 32 million. that would mean an expected congregation of about 12,800. Even if they go 20% over cost & you use the 3 times figure Lakewood uses, they would still need 12,800 people just to pay the bills (and sell the bank).

How do you figure the number of services?

Effective growth models show you that you figure the sanctuary should be an avg. of 75% full each service. Lakewood seats 16,000 now, yet they have 3 services for a congregation of 30,000... why not just take all 30,000 people and put them into 2 services (they will fit)... the answer is growth... they know people want to sit together & not have a hassle finding a seat... so basically Lakewood followed the strategy & has 3 services (for now)

This also explains why cc has 5 services now... not all are full.

Let's assume, they will need 7500 adults to make budget (few if any buy the idea the kids will be sitting with them in the service)... with a seating capacity of 2500 & using the "room to find a seat formula" they will need 4 services (4 services x 1875 per service = 7500 adults)

If the kids were to sit with them (it would be too chaotic)... they would need 6 -7 services

How do they figure the parking?

"Industry standard" is 1.7-1.8 people per car... but let's give them a break & use 2 per car. Assuming the mid morning service will be packed, figure about 4000 people minimun (that's using 2500 in the sanctuary, 1750 kids (low estimate) and another 250 people who are staff, volunteering & just "hanging out"... that's 2000 parking spots needed

 

 I am a "cc supporter" on many aspects.... however the idea that they are not coming here to "greatly grow" is of huge concern to me ... also the fact that they seem to care little about how they are "represented" is a concern as well ... I wish them all the best... but do wish they would be more upfront, lest they end up being the main topic of discussion at planning board meetings long after they have moved here, since it appears 140 gpr will not accomdate the growth they need to achieve, without causing a major disturbance to rockaway... perhaps they need to hire the same people lakewood church did.

I dont agree that legal recourse is available AFTER they move in. In that case RLUIPA would be first and foremost, the driving force preventing ANY interference with their practice. Sure, attempts could be made, superficial attempts at best, but any real action, like shutting them down would never happen. Once there, they become an unstoppable force, especially given the growth that we all know MUST happen and WILL happen, just for them to pay their bills. The fact that they have gone to such lengths to hide the intended growth, and in fact, lie about it publically, bothers me as much from an ethical or moral perspective as their current size does from a logistical view now. Bottom line (my personal opinion only) is that these are people that I dont want for neighbors. Period.

With all due respect Chuck, you've been very public with your "just say no" campaign.  for that reason alone,your quasi-legal opinion should be discounted...not to mention the legal advice offered by two real lawyers, Dimin and Sceusi.

Good work, Chuck! lol

Dweller, you always have much to contribute, and in such a diplomatic manner. I for one would like to thank you for sharing your knowledge and putting so much effort and research into this. And you do it for the good of our township and out of fairness, regardless of who you agree or disagree with it's clear that you're being fair and diplomatic...and have done your homework.

So much more productive than putting in time day and night parroting nonsense and disagreeing just for the sake of arguing.

So eagle, you're gonna argue with the person who you know won't argue back?

At least you're consistent.

I will end this "discussion" with just one comment. You quote things that were never said, or written. No reference was ever made by me to any type of people from anywhere. If you dont believe that then I can produce the original text. I still have it. Opinions are fine and I have no problem with someone who has a differing one, but I do take exception with someone who misquotes me. And sir, the civility of this reply gives you far more respect then is deserved.

So I guess the Daily Record editorial staff just ad-libbed "bad people from Newark" in there for him huh? Seems like a bit of a stretch.

I wish I had kept the actual DR clipping. I would be happy to scan it and post it here. It contained NO reference to "bad people from Newark". Thats an absurd statement to make, especially since Newark has nothing to do with RT or CC of Montclair. I am working on getting a copy of what was published and will be happy to post it when I can. As for the original, I believe I had already reposted that at least once before. Yes there was some editing done to the original. There usually is. Perhaps I will dig it out of the archives as well and repost again. That should give some malcontents fodder for further picking of nits.

Karen,

The slurs published in Chuck's letter are relevant to the credibility of his subsequent remarks.

Using a pseudonym doesn't detract from credibility.  Especially when all interested parties, including the newspapers in which the letters were published knew the true identity. 

The content of those letter hurt John Inglesino's run for State office, a fact which I'm very proud of.  It didn't hurt him as much as the fact that Pat Donofrio entered the race as well, however...but thats a long story. 

Hey, you brought up the subject in an apparent attempt to discredit me. 

Karen, you can't have it both ways.  You can't bring up a subject and then slam me for furthering the discussion. 

You may want to please yourself by disparaging me but you better stop or you'll go blind ( I just couldn't resist, you made it too easy) 

Actually, YOU were the person that inappropriatly brought up the "Garland Spinoza" letters. 

I raised the issue that Chuck is NOT a lawyer, so he shouldn't opine on whether RLUIPA laws give free reign to CC growth and his prior writing further reduces the credibility of that opinion.

Chuck rendered a legal opinion on RLUIPA and that opinion loses credibility due to his announced intention to oppose the project no matter what.

Many of Chuck's opinions pre date the civil rights act of 1964.  It's interesting that you'll defend his right to such opinions but oppose me just cause you like to argue