Church Files Suit Against Avondale Estates
Decatur Metro | July 27, 2010Remember this story?
How Avondale shut down the Christ Liberty Family Life Center because the church was operating without a permit and didn’t meet the city’s requirement that all houses of worship be located on a minimum of three acres and have 100 feet of frontage for parking?
Well, now the church is filing suit in federal court against the city over its three acre minimum, which applies exclusively to places of worship. Here’s their press release…
AVONDALE ESTATES – Christ Liberty Family Life Center filed suit today in federal court against the City of Avondale Estates to reclaim its liberty of religion under the U.S. Constitution. In late April, Avondale Estates shut the Church down because the City requires that religious facilities must be located on at least 3 acres of land. Avondale Estates puts this onerous requirement only on religious facilities and not on other places of public assembly.
For almost three months, the Church has been forced to assemble in various temporary meeting places for worship, each ill-suited to conducting church services. Dr. Emma Byrd, spokeswoman for the Church, has witnessed the burden first hand. “It’s been devastating for us. We haven’t been able to get a stable location,” said Dr. Byrd. “The congregation has been bleeding members and money.”
“Avondale’s three acre minimum for churches effectively excludes small congregations,” said John Mauck of the Chicago law firm Mauck & Baker, LLC, lead counsel for the Church. “Our forefathers fought for a Constitution that protects religious liberty. Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are not risking their lives for municipal ukases that exclude and discriminate against people of faith.”
Local counsel for the church is Kevin Theriot of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance defending the right of people to live out their faith. The Alliance Defense Fund has also been directly involved in providing financial support for Christ Liberty’s fight for religious freedom.
Latest from Decaturish
The plaintiffs have a good point about Avondale zoning discriminating against small congregations.
However, I have to take issue with this point from the press release . . .
“Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are not risking their lives for municipal ukases that exclude and discriminate against people of faith.”
Actually, that’s quite literally what U.S troops are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Iraq, we’re propping up a corrupt govt whose leaders participated in an ethnic cleansing campaign that forced millions of minority Sunnis out of Iraq. The International Rescue Committee (HQ’d in an office immediatlely east of Avondale Estates) is helping settle many of those refugees right here in Metro Atlanta.
In Afghanistan, we are also supporting a corrupt government, empowered by sham elections, that does not protect the rights of relgious minorities.
And, if you look at the history of our “diplomacy”, nothing has changed.
It is ironic, especially when you learn what this Alliance Defense Fund has been up to and who their leaders are. Or, maybe not ironic.
I like the Church’s argument. Admitting I’m not familiar with the relevant precedents, I can’t imagine what interest Avondale Estates has in requiring three acres and a certain amount of area for parking that would trump the Free Exercise clause.
I think Avondale’s interest is in preventing churches in storefronts and in residential homes, both of which have several drawbacks.
I find it interesting that the main concern of Dr. Byrd’s is that “ “The congregation has been bleeding members and money.” Not that the members needs can’t be served. Isn’t that what a church is supposed to be about, the members needs?
I also find it interesting that operating with out a permit isn’t of concern for them. Above the law?
I read that as they are bleeding members and money because the city shut down their facility, thus forcing them to meet in temporary spaces “ill suited to conducting church services.” It would seem to me that the “members’ needs” include a suitable place to meet and worship.
Also, perhaps they were operating without a permit not because they feel they are above the law, but because they think the law is stupid and invalid. At worst, they’ve engaged in some harmless civil disobedience here, no?
“At worst, they’ve engaged in some harmless civil disobedience here, no?”
Maybe, maybe not. That depends on where they were holding their services and what impact it was having on the surrounding area. If they held church services in someone’s single family house in a residential neighborhood, perhaps the congregant’s vehicles were illegally parked, causing difficulty for police or emergency responders, or simply causing parking difficulties for other residents.
If a church is bleeding money, then its ability to serve the needs of members suffers.
i wonder what emma byrd is a “doctor” of…
[...] Decatur Metro reports Christ Liberty Family Life Center has filed suit against Avondale Estates. The church says Avondale’s three-acre-minimum requirement for churches unfairly discriminates against small congregations. [...]
You can read the facts about what happened with the church and the City of Avondale in the Complaint on the below link.
http://www.mauckbaker.com/CB1FDC/assets/files/news/CL%20v%20AE%20complaint%20FILED.pdf
I don’t care if you are a church, a bar, a massage parlor, or a restaurant. Whatever thing you are cranking up and plan to make money off of needs to have adequate space and parking. Being a church doesn’t mean you get to park all over the city, on yards, and block driveways to serve your congregation.
Do you have some information to suggest they are parking on yards and blocking driveways? By the way, as just one example, Holy Trinity parishoners park on Sycamore when their church’s tiny lot is full. I guess we should the church down, as those folks are “parking all over the city.” Imagine that, people parking on public streets!
Churches do have protections massage parlors and bars don’t. That whole First Amendment thing.
If you weren’t from around here, you’d gather from this article that there was a desperate shortage of churches around here, and Avondale is responsible.
It seems disingenuous to play the religious discrimination card in a zoning case. If you have a retail establishment, a restaurant, etc., it is reasonable to assume that there will be regular turnaround, that the place will rarely, if ever, be 100% occupied at any one given time, and that parking needs are less substantial. But churches are different.
The very nature of a church means that it will be at or near capacity whenever services are being held. It doesn’t matter if you are a small congregation or not (and small congregations don’t always stay so). Thus, it is reasonable to expect it to have parking to accommodate those crowds, lest the lack thereof cause members of that church to park on surrounding public and private property. It’s the same reason you have to have a big parking lot for schools and movie theaters: everyone uses those buildings at the same time.
When is someone going to start an Atheist Defense Fund?
Also, I wonder, does faith need defending? and who is attacking it?
Look up both the “local counsel” and the Chicago law firm. Methinks more is afoot….
As an Avondale Estates resident, I’d like to comment & clarify some facts…
A business across the street from the church offered to allow congregants to park in his lot, thereby providing adequate parking. HOWEVER, the church NEVER filed the necessary papers with the city to request an exemption to the zoning, The offer by the adjacent business to provide parking was only communicated to the City by word of mouth. IMHO, the church should have followed the law and filed the necessary papers. Based on comments by the City of Avondale Estates, I understand that they probably would have considered making an exception IF the church had filed the necessary papers. But, since the church didn’t do that, the City never had the opportunity to make things right.
Another reason why the whole thing seems suspicious. Why didn’t the church ever file the legal papers?
I want to follow up on this. However, wouldn’t adequate parking only fulfill part of the city’s requirement? What about the three acre rule?
Is that the “exception” that you’re talking about?
Here is a link to the Complaint that was filed in Federal Court. You can read the facts about what happened with the church and the City of Avondale.
http://www.mauckbaker.com/CB1FDC/assets/files/news/CL%20v%20AE%20complaint%20FILED.pdf
So those are the plaintiffs’ facts. Have you got the response posted?
The suit was filed days ago. The city won’t have to respond for about 20-30 days. It’s a well drafted complaint, though whether the allegations are true or not is another matter.
I’m not sure you are right, Kathy. This is from a 5/12 AJC article:
“Last week when the city issued a code violation, it said all services at the site had to stop.
“It’s not the city’s fault,” City Manager Clai Brown said. “It should have been the landlord and tenant who did their due diligence in the beginning.”
Brown said the city attorney advised that the citation did not violate the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which limits land-use regulation against religious groups, because the church and landlord didn’t follow proper procedure.
Gargiulo has since tried to make up for that oversight by offering to let the church use land he owns across the street to meet the three-acre requirement for parking.
But that land is outside the city limits, so the city said the church can’t use it to meet the city requirement.”
So it seems that even if the church had filed the proper papers, the City would still have refused to consider use of the adjacent lot. I don’t know all the facts, of course, so maybe the AJC got this wrong and your post is closer to the truth. But if the AJC is right, this does seem to be a case of the city standing on a real technicality. The church has consensual use of private property to meet the spirit of this zoning requirement.
I didn’t realize until this morning that so many people considered zoning requirements of such vital importance when weighed against religious liberties. I sense a little hostility to religion here, or at least religion that isn’t yours. I don’t agree with most of what the ADF stands for, but religious freedom is pretty flippin’ important, so I don’t think it’s fair to disparage its efforts or the efforts of Chicago counsel here.
Religious liberty does not equal flaunting the permit & zoning processes. If what Kathy says is true, the church is simply refusing to follow the law and fill out a few papers. No one is impinging on the right of these people to worship however they please- or even saying, it appears, that they can’t use the building.They are just being asked to comply with some ordinances and get some variances. The “church” is not the building they occupy and no one is infringing on the church. I think there are a few mosques that have much better arguments on having their liberty threatened. I also think it is completely out of line that you are accusing people of being hostile towards religion because they do not support this church’s disregard for the Avondale’s laws. Churches don’t deserve exceptions to ordinances anymore than newspapers – but we don’t already make loads of zoning concessions for churches, so they are already getting preferential treatment, yes?
The law is the law, and if these people expect the law to protect them then they have an obligation to follow the law in turn. Otherwise, the process it moot. This outside counsel has an agenda; it does not look as though they are as much interested in helping preserve religious liberty as they are pushing a specific agenda that sets preference for the dominance of a particular strain of a particular religion.
This is from their website http://www.mauckbaker.com
Mauck & Baker, established in Chicago in 2001, is nationally known for representing churches and religious institutions.
We have represented religious organizations in real estate transactions, zoning applications, out-of-court settlements, litigation of zoning disputes, litigation of religious liberties, church splits and much more. In addition, we offer services in business planning and litigation, consumer protection, constitutional law, estate planning, real estate and many other areas.
Outside’s counsel’s motives are entirely irrelevant to this lawsuit. The Chruch either has meritorious claims or it doesn’t. Why their lawyers signed onto the case is of absolutely no legal consequence.
Of course religious liberty doesn’t equate to a right to flaunt zoning laws, and I highly doubt the Church’s suit claims any such right. The question is: are the zoning laws constitutional in the first place? I’m no expert on the free exercise clause, so I have no opinion on that question. But it’s not the case that equal application of a zoning law means the zoning laws are constitutional. For example, an ordinace requiring a church to sit on 50 acres would probably not pass muster, even if evenly enforced.
It is entirely possible to use zoning laws as a pretext to burden religious freedom. And other freedoms as well — the right to peaceful assembly would be severely mimited if local government required assemblies on tracts of no less than 100 acres, for example. I’m not saying Avondale is doing that, just that some of the responses in this thread probably don’t hit the issue the lawsuit is raising. Of course, the suit may well fail.
I believe what DEM has said about the City saying the property offered is outside the city and wouldn’t meet the requirements even if paper work was completed is correct.
According to the Religious Land us and Institutionalized Persons Act was passed in 2002 to prevent this type of religious discrimination. http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/housing_rluipa2.php:
“No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution…..”
Plus, where is there 3 acres to worship inside the perimeter and if there is land available, a small church probably couldn’t afford it.
But they weren’t even legally permitted! They never filed the initial paperwork to even open the church! Did they go through the variance process? It’s not discrimination because they CHOSE to occupy a space that does not legally meet the requirements for a church, did not apply for permits or ask the city for a variance, then decided this was discrimination when the city shut them down.
Pulling a passage from a law does not actually tell us what the law means, how it is applied or whether that passage is applicable to a case anymore than a layman saying “I have these symptoms” and diagnosing themselves based on what WebMD or the Mayo Clinic online says.
But they weren’t even legally permitted! They never filed the initial paperwork to even open the church! Did they go through the variance process? It’s not discrimination because they CHOSE to occupy a space that does not legally meet the requirements for a church, did not apply for permits or ask the city for a variance, then decided this was discrimination when the city shut them down.
__________________________
Exclamtion points aside, none of this matters to the Church’s claim. The church isn’t claiming they were discriminated against by the order to shut down, they are claiming the zoning scheme itself violates federal law and the First Amendment. In other words, they allege that the city can’t legally require a church (but not other businesses where people assemble, such as art galleries) to have 100 ft of frontage and 3 total acres.
The fact that the church did not go through the zoning process to seek a variance has nothing to do with whether the zoning ordinance itself is a valid exercise of the City’s powers. Example — if Georgia passed a law saying you need a permit to speak, you wouldn’t have to apply for the permit first before challenging the law as a violation of your First Amendment rights.
Again, you can disagree with the merits of the Church’s suit. I don’t know if they’ll win or not. But many of the criticisms I’m reading here are way off the mark.
I understand that and I do get your point. I guess I am just appalled by the fact that they didn’t even try to get the right permits and go through the variance process and work with the city- in other words, follow the law – and now claim the law is discriminatory. That’s why it smells fishy to me and grates so much. Does that make sense? It’s an unusual position for me- I usually think zoning and development laws are too tilted for developers and do not support and serve the community and its residents to the level they should. Perhaps I am having a hard time articulating as a result….
I’m pretty sure Avondale is not restricting the church’s free exercise of religion–they same way they wouldn’t be restricting a bondage club’s: you are allowed to do it–just not here.
Also, church’s–businesses in this case, private clubs in others–don’t pay taxes, so it’s hard to feel bad for them.
No, I hear you. It makes sense as a practical matter. My only point is that it’s not going to matter much legally, at least at this point.
And I am reacting emotionally
So, practically, Avondale could slightly change the wording of the zoning requirement and walk away and the church will still lose. It seems that the church wants say the city is discriminating against just them, but in reality it’s any church that can’t meet the required zoning.
NM — No, I don’t think so. One of the issues is that the ordinance has different requirements for churches than for all other places of public assembly. IIRC, in fact, chruches can’t locate anywhere within several of the Avondale zones — regardless of frontage and acreage — without first obtaining a discretionary variance. The church is saying that Avondale can’t legally put one set of restrictions on churches and another, more lenient set on everyone else.
“another, more lenient set on everyone else.”
Is there really another, more lenient set on EVERYONE else?
I’m confident that that is not the case, but I’m open to being shown that I’m wrong.
Actually, DEM has noted somewhere that the complaint points out that the code in Avondale allows art galleries and other business types to have less than 3 acres and the complaint does say that- and to be honest, these would be crappy lawyers if they made that up and possibly not lawyers for long
. The city’s argument will probably be that since this was a illegally occupied space- no operating permits, etc- that the church has not experienced discrimination. If the church had applied for the permits & variances and been turned down, I can see an pretty valid argument just as a layman- the code places undue burden on churches that it does not place on art galleries. It’s going to be pretty interesting little case.
No one is saying they can’t have a church. They can handle snakes and dance around Maypoles for all I care. But if ALL churches must have at least 3 acres of land, then why is this church discriminated against? If this church is allowed to circumvent this rule, then it’s the other churches who are being discriminated against.
What are “ukases”??
Ukase: 1. An authoritative order or decree; an edict.
2. A proclamation of a czar having the force of law in imperial Russia.
The Free Dictionary dot com
I hear all this griping about the evolving socialism in this country and yet even the right wing crazies have missed these Avondale ukases? Somebody call Sean Hannity!
No one is asking the most important question — what person calls herself an “Apostle” in a federal lawsuit and expects her legal position to be taken seriously? Answer — apparently the same person who believes that zoning requirements are beneath her.
I believe you have missed the point. DEM has it.
I see a problem with requiring 3 acres and a permit to meet as a church. If I want to form a church and meet in of my home, that falls under the free exercise of religion and the “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” The right of the church to file a federal lawsuit falls under the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” All of which falls under Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights.
But that’s in your home. Not the same thing at all as renting a storefront, putting up a sign and opening for business. And if your church in your house was causing a nuisance and hazard to neighbors because of excess traffic or the behavior of your parishioners, whose rights win? After all, your house is not zoned commercial. Also, the press is protected Constitutionally as strongly as religion and the newspaper office isn’t exempt from either tax or permits or zoning. Isn’t that discrimination? With rights come responsibility.