Scaled Back Project - The "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Board

Date: Sun May 2 1:14 PM, 2004

Scaled Back Project

Date: Sun May 2 1:23 PM, 2004

Here's one lawyers view on these type of situations:

In disputes between religious institutions and municipalities, Hamilton said her first goal is to broker a compromise.

"The hope, in all of these cases, is you find a win-win solution," Hamilton said.

http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/articles/news2-marci.htm

Date: Sun May 2 3:44 PM, 2004

Thanks for the response. I noticed that in the Daily Record also. This situation may be somewhat different than most in the respect that the property is currently paying taxes to the town of $630,000 per year. If CC buys it, even under a scaled down version, those tax revenues stop. If CC were to again try to expand, the town would need to come up with the funds for a legal defense without that $630,000 per year being available.

A compromise is fine if it can be indefinitely enforced. Otherwise doesn't it just seem to defer the problem to a date in the future when the township is less financially able to resist those expansion efforts?

My question unfortunately was not addressed by the Daily Record quote. Restated it is "What guarantee, if any, is there that any "compromise" would be enforceable at a later date?

Date: Sun May 2 5:31 PM, 2004

Yes, Marci did say "the HOPE is..." That HOPE is simply a HOPE. It will take a great deal of HONESTY and open discussion to EVER see this situation turn to a win-win. I highly doubt it is possible after all that has happened. Once the applicant began a smear campain against the town, it will be very difficult to believe this could be a good project for the residents of the town.

Those who have attended the planning bard meetings and have heard the testimony understand my concern. Those who have seen TV interviews know what we are talking about. Those who have seen how discussion and debate are twisted and turned to make it appear that Rockaway is anything but a tolorant, open and caring town can understand the concern as well.

Lisa

Date: Sun May 2 7:50 PM, 2004

I guess that's really my point. After witnessing the megachurch's handling of the situation, I would not be comfortable with any "compromise" that allows them to get their "foot in the door" without an ironclad legal guarantee that they could not seek expansion in the future. Not being a lawyer I'm not sure that such a guarantee is possible. My guess is that it is not, but that's only a guess.

In the absence of such a guarantee, I would feel more comfortable with a previous Marci quote which is to "fight them tooth and nail". I'm just not comforable taking the Reverend's word on something like this.

Date: Sun May 2 8:19 PM, 2004

In my opinion, it seems unlikely that any compromise we as a township would be happy with, would be satisfactory to the church.

They are moving here not only to accommodate their current membership (PLUS, as the Rev. himself said, "many, many who attend but never become members").

They are moving here to accommodate their existing members AND to grow.

Any compromise that would make us comfortable certainly wouldn't suit the church's needs.

Date: Mon May 3 10:56 AM, 2004

Karen,

I agree with your statement that any compromise that would make us comfortable would most likely not be acceptable to the church. I would also take it a step further to say that any compromise that they offer that does make us comfortable needs to be "in stone". That is to say that it would not be viewed by them as an opportunity to get their foot in the door for now and later seek to expand. As I've mentioned before, once they're in, we lose the Agilent tax revenues and are in a worse position financially to legally counter applications for expansion.