Parsippany council listened to the people Sunday, August 21, 2005
The township council in Parsippany should be applauded for making it clear it has no interest in rezoning the remaining 26 acres of the Waterview tract for a "town center." The council members proved to their constituents that they were willing to listen, evaluate, and represent the people who voted them into office.
The council's decision proves that growth does not always need to supersede a harmonious balance between quality of life and development. The council also realized that the proposed "smart growth" plan in actuality meant cramming more homes and businesses into an already tightly packed community. It is my sincere hope that all Parsippany public officials -- elected and appointed -- continue to take the pulse of this town and respond accordingly.
-- David Kaplan, president, Parsippany Residents for Intelligent Development
Wouldn't it be nice for the pb to deny cc's application like Parsippany did? And that definitely would have happened here in RT. However, we are dealing with things other than just a developer. The lawsuit shows that it's not easy to deny this applicant. They have certain "rights" that seem to mean more than the rights of residents. This shouldn't be, I consider it reverse discrimination. But that's the way it is.
As I have said before, the Mayor has told me that the PB will ultimately have to approve this project. The most that it could possible hope to do is reduce its scope. I was told this about 2 years ago.
That scope has now been reduced, thus approval is inevitable.
If you do not believe me folks, please ask Sceusi and report what you learn on this board. He is completely available to discuss the issue. His number is listed.
You're forgetting one thing. What the mayor told you 2 years ago was before we received help from the outside. I'm sure the pb has talked to experts, such as Marci Hamilton, and they are better prepared for certain problems that may arise then they were 2 years ago. It's just difficult because of the religious aspect to this, such as dealing with RLUIPA. I'm sure the pb is getting expert advice, but it's not as easy as it was in Parsippany. I'm sure our pb will try every avenue they can and if they have to go to the supreme court so be it!
Instead of dealing in conjecture, call the Mayor and ask him his current opinion on the likelihood of approval. That will put the question to bed, right? Remember, he is your public servant and is very easy to communicate with. He makes himself very accessable to his constituency. I have spoken with him on three occasions now.
Regarding Marci Hamiltons position on this issue - - she said about 1.5 years ago when interviewed by one of the newspapers something to the following effect:
'The best way to resolve these sorts of issues betweeen churches and towns is found in compromise.' (that is paraphrased and based on my memory - - - it is not word for word)
Does anyone here really believe that the church has not compromised in the legal sense of the word? It has reduced itself from 412,000 sq feet down to 265,000, and on, and on, and on. What has RT done? It has attempted to raise the bar by passing new and ineffective zoning laws.
In the courts, that is going to be seen as a situation in which the church was willing to compromise, but not the Township - - - not good at all.
Folks, you have but one option. ED. Exercise it now while it would still be against Agilent. If you wait much longer, it will have to be exercised against cc itself, not a pretty situatioan to be in.
It seems like you may be a bit more pessimistic about this than is warranted. At least I hope so. I seem to recall language in RLUIPA that in essence says a town can deny a church applicant if (1) it does not pose an undue hardship to the church and (2) there is an overriding public detriment that would occur if the application were approved. I'm not sure of the exact language but I believe that it's something like the foregoing.
With respect to item (1), how can the church claim an extreme hardship when there are other sites, Hercules for example, that could have been pursued. I believe you even mentioned another megachurch that found a site around Nutley or Montclair a while ago.
With respect to item (2), just taking the issue of traffic alone, how can their most recent plan of dumping 1,000 cars on Meriden Road be supported as not causing a severe traffic problem.
to me it seems like the town is on pretty solid legal ground so far for not approving the application and having it upheld in court, if necessary.
Well, of course. She is paid to fight, not compromise. The statement that she made about compromise was made before we hired her to defend our position.
Yes, I am pessimistic. We are living in a very politically conservative swing of the olde political pendulum right now. That bodes very poorly for our position in Federal court, as I am certain you will agree.
As for your specific question about traffic, I believe he will claim zero growth or something like that in order to mitigate any traffic questions. And that will be the end of that.
The traffic ultimately will be whatever it will be after he grows, despite his proclaimations under oath. And then the town and county will have to deal with it by expanding the infrastructure to resemble more that of a city. But, by that time, the whole rural flavour of this township will have been permanently destroyed - - - a fait accompli.
I understand what you are saying, and I am not wearing my rosy colored glasses, however in response to your comments in this thread:
1. I am not sure the Mayor will provide much information at this point as he is named in a lawsuit. (and yes he is a good guy to talk to)
2. I agree with Thinker. The council knows a lot more now than they did 2 years ago...we all do.
3. Regarding RLUIPA; in time RT will put the language used in that law to the test. First of all, CC does not even own the land, Secondly, the traffic will create a hardship on the residents, and third, RT can cite all the cases in neighboring towns that are being shut down because of the same reasons we do not want this project. Treating CC different than those other entities is blatant discrimination against the townships rights.
i for one am not ready to run the white flag up my pole yet - and I do not believe it's time to run it up the Municipal flag pole either. Hold your water Rat, this is going to be a long, protracted legal battle. I hope the reV has the war chest loaded up.
Answer from Marci Hamilton --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"--I am familiar with your case. In fact, I am in the process of being retained by Rockaway to fight RLUIPA. The best thing to do here is to fight RLUIPA tooth and nail. Encourage your public officials to take a strong stance against it, and make it clear to everyone that you are not against religion, this religion, or race, but rather in favor of good land use planning in the best interest of the community. Regards, Marci Hamilton"
If I hear the words Ms. Hamilton and "compromise" one more time... Makes me think that Doty is back like he was on nj.con saying over and over "compromise". Yes, she did mention compromise but in this case she said "--I am familiar with your case. In fact, I am in the process of being retained by Rockaway to fight RLUIPA. The best thing to do here is to fight RLUIPA tooth and nail. Encourage your public officials to take a strong stance against it, and make it clear to everyone that you are not against religion, this religion, or race, but rather in favor of good land use planning in the best interest of the community. Regards, Marci Hamilton" Rat, you have had a defeatist attitude since day one. This case will cause BIG news if RT fights and they had better. We are right here. cc is not. They can't bully their way into our town and expect us to lay down and take it (like you think we are going to). They have already shown their true colors with the lawsuit. They are scaling back in size and building but not in numbers. That is THE BIG problem for RT. You, yourself, asked the rev about growth. So you know there is something up his sleeve. But we DON'T want to find out. So we will kick butt and do the best we can to save our town. If you want to run go right ahead, but don't think there's anyone following you cause there isn't. We have not yet begun to fight!
Just to set the political record straight, I am a registered Independent. Nonetheless, one can not help but observe a few things on the political landscape including the following:
1. Marci was mentored by S. D. O'Connor, who was a judicial moderate. She is no longer there to lend a sympathetic ear.
2. Roberts will replace her. His confirmation is not in doubt. There are no legit questions about his credentials that could possibly be raised. Yet, he is clearly more conservative than Marci's Mentor. That is going to make things much more difficult when this case hits the SC.
3. The country is in a very "Christian Conservative" mood right now. Things like faith based initiatives and RLUIPA are considered to be the best thing since sliced bread. Most pol's are not going to buck that trend; we are not going to find sympathy in governmental agencies about this issue. More rights for churches is just around the corner. Hard to deny.
4. The rev does not need a loaded war chest. He is represented pro bono by The Becket Fund.
5. Marci did mention the compromise method before she was hired. My how money will change outlooks.
6. Yes, I agree that the mayor is quite the good guy. In my discussions with him, he has been very forthright and honest about the situation. He comes across as a well educated man in this area of the law. I feel very badly for him as he is definitely stuck between a rock and a hard place with no wiggle room to defend the township that I can see.
7. If my information is right, the Agilent property will shortly belong to ireland. That changes the calculus dramatically if we are ever to consider ED; it is one thing to take a property from a big company - - - quite another to take it from a so called church.
8. If ireland closes on that property as he has told his broker that he intends to do, then the ED option is off the table.
9. If that is off the table, and push comes to shove, what options do we have left?
Even if the court buys the zero growth line, isn't there still more traffic than Meriden Road and the other semi rural roads can handle. 1,000 cars letting out around the same time and heading down Meriden is still going to cause quite a bit of havoc and I would think would be more than sufficient cause to turn down the application in and of itself without even getting into environment and the rest of the concerns. I just don't see how that traffic plan is going to fly. Hope I'm right.
Since we live on Meriden Road, I completely agree. However, I am not so sure that is irelands problem at the end of the day. I am certain that will be his claim and it will be for the courts to decide it. I suspect that if Meriden Rd had to become widened to 4 lanes, as far as cc is concerned, so be it. We shall see what the courts have to say but I suspect that there will be little sympathy for RT on this for reasons mentioned elsewhere.
Our only truely protected right is ED based on the theory that we need to protect and even enhance the local property tax base. That was just adjudicated and the ruling was found in favour of towns for the use ED for that purpose, as much as I personally disagree with that ruling. Nonetheless, we should use it as it is tested law.
You are forgetting two things here. RT will not deny cc IF they cut down on the numbers, cut way down. That would be the only way the environment, the town and traffic can handle this. So I really don't understand how the rev can say his religious rights are being denied. The congregation size is what's being denied. Also, there's a new current in the air by residents all over, especially in NJ, where people are trying to take back their towns from being over run and losing their quality of life. That's a BIG issue. It's been happening almost everyday, everywhere. This is going to cause a BIG mess and I do hope the rev buys the land, cause he's going to be stuck with it for a long time before this issue is ever resolved. For years he will be looking at the land, dreaming of his IreCenter, and losing money everyday.
How is the guy going to cut down on the number that it already is? Even that is too big by far in my opinion. And he claims to know of no potential future growth; perhaps even attrition is claimed by the sob. It's BS, but that is his position and nobody has officially refuted it and so it stands.
And you really do not want him to purchase that property. If he does, all that he will have to do is establish a little 30 person chapel in the cafeteria there, calling it an annex to his megachurch in montclair. Then, it will officially be a "church" subject to tax exempt status, thus - - - Poof - - - there goes 630,000.00 bucks from the townships coffers!!
If their is a small pseudo chapel in the cafeteria, only that space would be tax exempt....and if they still use it for other purposes, then is non-taxable percentage...like an office in a house....the rest of the property is still office space........
