Some very relevant points are made by Kate who appears to clearly be "Disinterested Observer" giving some candid (yet sobering) thoughts about CC moving to Rockaway.
What is interesting is how objective she is. She clearly has no dog in this fight, yet her observations, as well as RockRes's, speak volumes about this issue, especially the posts at the end.
"but I think the impact of Christ Church will be positive; I also imagine the church will make available its resources (which are many) to the benefit of its new community, in the interest of being a good neighbor and doing the Christian thing."
but as we've all discussed before - the negative impacts are serious (traffic, environment, taxes)...and the benefits that cc has to offer are already quite readily available to us in RT...
and as for doing the Christian thing and being neighborly...it is cc that has proven that they WILL NOT be good neighbors (eg: not showing respect for our towns concerns or offering to pay for the impact their traffic will cause our streets)...
so, yes...kate seems to be impartial and fair minded...but she also does not seem to know the whole story...and what RT's concerns are...
She does indeed seem very diplomatic and fair-minded.
However, her knowledge of the RLUIPA situation seems to be very limited--i.e. it seems that she feels the church has the right to do what they want (as is many people's understanding of RLUIPA).
...when in fact, the church must still abide by environmental regulations
...and in fact, the enture RLUIPA concept is being challenged as unconstitutional
RLUIPA's objective, as I understand it, was to make sure that churches were given the SAME rights as other developers.
I think it's being taken advantage of, in fact, to give churches GREATER rights than other developers.
This doesn't seem right to me--and if I recall correctly, is part of the "unconstitutional" argument against RLUIPA.