Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 
The "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Board -> Rockaway Township Free Speech -> Faith Temple - ED battle
Post Info TOPIC: Faith Temple - ED battle
Jay R


Status: Offline
Posts: 203
Date:
Faith Temple - ED battle
Permalink  

Faith Temple article - click for original article

Another interesting article for our friends - both Matthew who claims "it's never happened before" and then makes excuses for being wrong...and for Rat - our resident ED expert:

Church loses ground in Brighton land suit


Fernando Diaz
Staff writer


(December 19, 2005) — The federal judge hearing Faith Temple's case against the town of Brighton has thrown out some of the church's claims, according to a decision issued today.

Faith Temple filed lawsuits again Brighton to stop eminent domain proceedings on 66 acres along Westfall Road. The church had planned to build a complex on the land.

Faith Temple argued that Brighton violated its First Amendment rights under the U.S. and state constitutions, as well as under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, called RLUIPA. That act states that governments can't implement land use regulations that would substantially burden a person's right to practice religion.

U.S. District Judge David Larimer wrote in a 14-page decision issued today that Brighton was not circumventing the intent of the act. However, Faith Temple's other claims can move forward.

"Both zoning and eminent domain are well-recognized, distinct concepts, and at the stroke of a pen Congress could have included both within the coverage of RLUIPA. It did not do so, and it is not for this court to judicially amend RLUIPA to "correct" Congress' omission," Larimer wrote in his decision

Brighton has claimed that it was attempting to purchase the 66-acre parcel at the center of the lawsuit to expand Buckland Park, and has included it in the town's Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2000.

Faith Temple has claimed that it wanted the land to develop a larger facility to accommodate its growing congregation, and that it successfully negotiated a purchase contract with it's the land's owner in January 2004. Four months later, Brighton announced its intention to acquire the land through eminent domain and by July, Faith Temple had filed lawsuits to stop the procedure.

Last April, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court dismissed Faith Temple's first lawsuit on the grounds that it failed to prove Brighton acted in "bad faith" and violated the church's First Amendment rights.

That same month, Faith Temple informed the court of its intent to close on the property.



__________________
This message is posted to the "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Internet Forum. Reproduction of this post on any other website is expressly forbidden without prior permission of the author.
rockres23yrs


Status: Offline
Posts: 259
Date:
Permalink  

It seems as if this project should never be allowed to be built for a number of reasons such as environmental impact, infrastructure impact, depletion of tax basis, inadequacy of roads, etc. Now it appears that RT can be proactive in protecting the rights of its citizens rather than depending on the DEP, judges, etc. The question is at what point would it be appropriate to commence ED and if ED was commenced too soon would the environmental issues that the DEP is assessing ever be determined? Hopefully the DEP will shortly rule in RT's favor which may make ED unnecessary. If not, perhaps RT should protect the welfare of its residents by both filing suit to have the DEP ruling overturned but concurrently commencing the ED process. This matter is too important to the quality of life in RT to totally ignore the option.

__________________
Rational


Status: Offline
Posts: 1663
Date:
Permalink  

I would advocate parallel pathways. Let the DEP do whatever the DEP decides to do, but in parallel with that decision process, lets initiate ED on the property. It is our right to do so since this man is going to damage the tax base in the township, and thus it should be done.

As you know, I have little to no faith that the DEP is the least bit inclined to do the right thing for the environment or RT.

-- Edited by Rational at 17:24, 2005-12-19

__________________
rockres23yrs


Status: Offline
Posts: 259
Date:
Permalink  

On the news last night was another story of a town using eminent domain to improve it's oceanfront area. I believe that the town mentioned in the report was Long Branch. It seems to be a trend that is catching on and becomming an accepted practice.

__________________
Rational


Status: Offline
Posts: 1663
Date:
Permalink  

It is clearly legal and ulike RLUIPA, has already survived SC judicial scrutiny.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
The "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Board -> Rockaway Township Free Speech -> Faith Temple - ED battle
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard