Marketplace
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
Partly Cloudy ~ River stage: 34.01 Rising Saturday, November 21, 2009 |
|
Legal lingo and the food ministry
Posted Monday, November 5, 2007, at 12:55 AM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
In my previous blog, I referred to a Texas law firm Anthony & Middlebrook P.C. that offered to represent Christ Church of the Heartland if the city of Cape Girardeau doesn't approve its request for a special use permit.
In a 10-page document the firm refers to several Missouri court cases brought against municipalities. Here is the very, very, very short version. I used the word "very" three times for a reason. Lawyers often engage in demonstrating how every word carries some kind of weight and meaning, subject to interpretation. I am not a lawyer and don't presume to interpret the following, but you may find it interesting background for Monday night's public hearing. If you are inclined to read more about the following court cases, you'll see how a single word can make a big difference in the outcome of a case. Much the way the word "retail" did in the planning and zoning commission's unanimous decision to deny Pastor Zack Strong's request for a special use permit. The board's decision caused Angel Food Ministries to remove "retail" from the its Web site text. In Missouri, two cases are often cited when churches clash with city ordinances. (Anthony & Middlebrook's attached letter refers to a few more.) In the 1959 suit brought by Congregation Temple Israel against the city of Creve Coeur, the court said the city could not use zoning laws to stop a church from building in a residential area. Christ Church of the Heartland is in a community zoned R-1, which is a single-family home designation, the strongest of Cape Girardeau's four levels of residential zones. Angel Food Ministries' lawyers also referred to a series of cases brought by Village Lutheran Church against the city of Ladue. The lawyers summarized on case this way: "Any regulatory power a municipality may have over churches is purely for safety regulation." Here's some more detail from the summary of the judgement: The case was sparked by the church's plans to expand. "At a hearing before the City Council, neighbors adjacent to the Church property voiced their objections to the proposed expansion, particularly the location of the gymnasium. They argued that the gymnasium should be closer to Clayton Road, because, among other things, such a large building would have a negative impact on the view from their houses. City denied the Church's application for a special use permit." In one of the earlier lawsuits (which I could not find directly online) the court decided "... that city need not issue a special use permit because the church had to neither apply nor receive a special use permit before proceeding with any new construction" and "that municipalities may use their regulatory powers over churches solely for the purposes of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community." The church also asked for damages from the city, for violating the church's "free exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ... and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States." The damages were denied -- and the court added a clarification, saying, "Thus, City's mere requirement that the Church apply for a special use permit did not infringe on the free exercise of religion. Furthermore, under the facts of this case, the Church voluntarily applied for a special use permit, instead of pursuing an outright challenge to the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance either as written or as applied to it. Having chosen and initiated the permit procedure on its own, the Church cannot now claim a violation of its constitutional rights for pursuing that very procedure." While reading the lawyer's notes and the the summaries of some of the opinions on the cases above and a few in the attached documents, I thought of something Cape Girardeau Mayor Jay Knudtson said towards the end of our conversation Saturday. I asked if he thought resolving the Angel Food Ministries would put an end to the trouble between the church and its neighbors. He said that either he and this council "or a future council and mayor will have to deal with this. There may be a time where a governing body makes that decision, and says, "enough is enough." There may be a set of circumstances that cause that decision to be made. This ministry is a good ministry. It's helping people in our community." He went on to say he felt the fight over Angel Food Ministries was rooted in issues dating to Christ Church of the Heartland's expansion project and that "there have been errors on both sides." But as for drawing a line between a church's right to pursue its mission without regard to its neighbors, or a neighborhood's right to determine the limits of a church's activities, he said, "I don't want to be part of trailblazing that part of the trail." Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Here's your inoculation against flu hysteria(  5 ~ 3:19 AM, May 7)
Almost -30-
Swine dilemma
Flu, a few words from the CDC {live}
Flu, part 2
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Again I stress! R-1 is R-1. The city needs to step forward and explain to all parties what the ordinance says. If it is legal to have the food distribution service, then so be it. If it is not, then no. Too much emotion and opining is going on. And guess who is caught in the middle? The needy! They shouldn't have to be the pawns.
As for Mayor Knudtson's comment on a "future governing body" making the decision on this matter?, that's what he's elected for. Evidently, he hasn't read R-1 zoning laws for Cape either. . .
I agree..."enough is enough." It amazes me how small things can get so blown out of proportion.
In the end they should be issued a special permit to continue to run this food program. The complaints are ridiculous and trivial.
I find it odd that this is the only church this city government has a problem with. Cape Girardeau has many many many church's that hold bazaar's, fund raisers, dinners, silent auctions, daycares, and etc. to raise money for whatever needs -and they don't make the news. I think our mayor and city council have a personal problem with Christ Church. After all if it was LaCroix doing the Angel Food ministry there would not be an issue. And as for the mayors comment about the next adminstration dealing with it- remember that when it comes time to vote him in or out. Our mayor has forgetten his job description!
Tonight's the night! We'll see what the Council does.
Are the city council meetings still televised? If so, what time and what channel? Thank you.
I still haven't figured out how that area could be R-1 when next door is the housing for SEMO students. You can't tell me that's not a money making deal in a single family resident area???? Even if the church does get $1, it is still for a good cause to help individuals and the church. Most churches hold chili night, chicken and dumplings night, etc to make extra money for church, wants wrong with this. I wouldn't think the Church makes more noise than near by college students coming and going through out the night.
Great point clg63701.
Mayor Knudtson has forgotten his duties as mayor.
Unless of course the duties include being a "TopStep" Mayor who loves to be in front of the camera at all times.
Good ole King Knudston.
ycontrol, while some people do seem to want to characterize the differences between the church and its neighbors as "a battle of good and evil" those closest to the situation see it as a land use and zoning disagreement, which the city council needs to resolve.
The differences are rooted in the church's decision to increase it's size by five times -- enough capacity for 2,000 -- which is why neighbors are concerned abou traffic, etc.
As for the suggestions of putting bars, etc., on that land, it's zoned R-1, single family, meaning churches may build there, but few other non-single-family concerns would be allowed to build / operate.
@clg63701
Right, it's just Christ Church. Everyone's out to get them. And your evidence about it being different for LaCroix was quite convincing.... oh wait, it was just some rambling.
Pffft. Get real.
To fourfourtwo and anyone else who decides to watch the meeting on television tonight, it airs live at 7 p.m., on Charter cable channel 5.
For those of you planning on attending the meeting -- the study session starts at 5 p.m. It is open to the public.
The issue playing here is if government is allowed to control churches. It's all about seperation of state and church and it will be interesting to see if the City will have a backbone or if they will give in to a few out of state lawyers.
In my opinion yes there should be seperation of State and Church. But is a Anglefood ministry part of a church? In my opinion no.
Peg
Have you ever gotten a copy of R-1 ordinances?
The court cases that were named are of a different nature. Temple Israel had a problem because the zoning was changed after they purchased the property. The lawyers summary that any control a city may have over churches is purely for safety reasons. Court cases in other states have had judges write their opinion that because of the nature of today's churches, they have become 24 hour operations. It went on to say that some church operations would conflict with the "quiet enjoyment" that the normal citizen is supposed to have in his home. I like the court case they named that said the city could amoung other things regulate morals........ (and whose morals might those be?)......You might remember the Southern Baptist Convention of Missouri at their annual conference in Cape Girardeau, found Islam to be Evil....(among other evil people)..... I wish some people would do their homework before that start making such irrational comments about the neighbors who object to the retail operation of food at this location. It is retail...otherwise by the USDA they would not be able to accept food stamps. I did look up the law firm in Texas and noticed some of their former clients or people who support them....some of those people are not on my list of good people. I think some people think that the church is being wronged because 1. they are a church and 2. they are providing food (although for a set fee)...... The issue is does a church have free reign to do as they please, when they please, and do they have the same rights as an ordinary citizen. OR do we give them priority status. If a special use permit is granted for the distribution of food... is that all it will entail. Are they also going to address the violation of parking a commercial truck in an R-1 area??? I am not against providing food for the needy...however this is not entirely the case in this matter. The church has been offered alternative locations according to the minister, however, they want to remain right where they are. That statement could cost him a court case. ALso the lawyers in Texas are being bullies. NONE of the court cases in Missouri are even close to the question of selling food. I wonder how some of the ultra holy people would feel if it were a Moslem church and they included a cd on their religion (instead of the cd angel food ministries packs). The souther baptist have already voiced their opinion. In the U.S. we are guaranteed freedom of religion. By the same token we guaranteed freedom from religion.
I justwatched on t.v. the consensus of the city council that Christ Church of the Heartland was acting as a ministry in the Angel Food Program and did not require a special use permit. By not granting a special use permit they have left themselves wide open to a law suit. They will now have to contend with the fact that a tractor trailer is parked in the parking lot of a property zoned R-1. Also by "assuming" they knew the law (implying a seperate law for churches) and the supposed fact that churches are above the law, is a serious mistake. A special use permit would have been much more advantagous to the city and Christ Church. There are on the books court cases about churches thinking they are not bound by law, and it isn't favorable to the churches.
I am starting my own ministry. The city says I can do whatever I want in my residentially zoned neighborhood since whatever I am doing is a ministry. I haven't decided what sort of ministry I will be doing yet. Fortunately for me since I am acting as a ministry in doing so, no zoning laws will stop me. Thank you Mayor Knudtson for clearing a way for me to do whatever I can dream of doing in my residentially zoned neighborhood.
give it a break people...there are other churches located in R-1 neighborhoods. What is the big deal?
Come on guys look at the real issue here. It is not about the food ministry or the truck parked on the church's parking lot one day a month. The 3 or 4 neighbors are upset because their lovely view changed. The neighbors enjoyed walking there and letting their children/grandchildren play on it. The church decided to build a parking lot there. Now the neighbors are upset that the church built on its own property. They could have put a basketball court there for their youth or a skateboard ramp. They could have built a garage their for their church buses. Why can't they build on their own property without opposition. Do you ask your neighbors before you alter your property?