Comments on: Church Files Suit Against Avondale Estates

By: nelliebelle1197

nelliebelle1197 — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:35:43 +0000

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.

By: nelliebelle1197

nelliebelle1197 — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:26:07 +0000

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.

By: Mleko

Mleko — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:05:05 +0000

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.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:57:11 +0000

“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.

By: DEM

DEM — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:17:39 +0000

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.