[MassHistPres] Churches in LHDs

[Marcia Starkey]

See The National Trust's Preservation Law Educational Materials.."Court Decisions Involving Historic Religious Properties" 2--9   elaw at nthp.org  or 202.588.6035    
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: slater at alum.rpi.edu 
  To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu 
  Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 12:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Churches in LHDs


  We are not attempting to interfere with the Diocese's decision-making process. We are only trying to prevent these buildings from being ultimately demolished. We have 2 churches in the process, one is across from a Walgreens at a busy intersection -- prime location for a CVS. The other is in an area also desirable for commercial development. 

  We lost a church last year in Springfield to a small commercial development. The church, St. Joseph's, was on the National Register, but was not in a local historic district, so since the development was private, nothing could be done.

  I'm looking to cite some paramount case that ruled that it is not a violation of church/state separation to include a church in a LHD.

  Thanks,

  Ralph 

  <-----Original Message----->Mary Immaculate of Lourdes Church was orginally
  >placed in the Newton Upper Falls Historic District more than 30 years ago. The
  >district was established in accordance with Chapter 40 C of the Massachusetts
  >General Laws. Mary Immaculate of Lourdes was designated for closing in the
  >first round of recent parish closings by the Archdiocese of Boston. Another
  >Parish, St.Philip Neri, that was a spin off of Mary Immaculate seventy years
  >before, had been expected to close. It was spared. After months of respectful
  >but impassioned advocacy by the people of Mary Immaculate, many of them the
  >descendents of those who had built it in 1910, the Archdiocese changed its
  >mind. At a meeting at St. Philip Neri, the Archdiocese spokesman announced that
  >Philip Neri would be closed as an English speaking parish and left temporarily
  >in the hands of the Korean Catholic Community of Boston, who had been sharing it
  >with the English speaking Congregation. They were given one year of
  >discernment and are still there four years later.
  >
  >When one of the die-hard Philip Neri asked why the decision had been reversed,
  >he explained that the Archdiocese had determined that the location of Mary
  >Immaculate in the Upper Falls Historic District would severely restrict the
  >changes that could be made to its exterior appearance (certainly including
  >demolition) without the permission of the Historic District Commission which
  >clearly would reject any significant changes. As a result, the building could
  >not easily be sold off. This is a clearly relevant precedent for the
  >Springfield parish although the long term placement in the District was clearly
  >a more advantageous position
  >for the MIOL parishionners. The fact that we had pointed out the historic
  >district status (and beauty) of the building for years before they acknowledged
  >it was a bittersweet irony. As that noted theologian Homer Simpson often
  >remarked, "D'oh!"
  >
  >It should also be noted that St. Bernard's church in West Newton was proposed
  >for closing. We amended the city's Landmark Ordinance so that St. Bernard's
  >could be landmarked as a property eligible for the National Register; the owner
  >was clearly going to reject its listing. Subsequently the church was spared and
  >put in a two church parish with an adjacent parish
  >
  >
  >Alderman Brian Yates, Newton Mass.,,(BYates at newtonma.gov; e-mail;
  >website BrianYates.org)
  >
  >Historic Preservation Chair, Committee to Save Mary Immaculate of Lourdes Parish
  >
  >
  >On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM, <slater at alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
  >
  >I have to imagine that the inclusion of a church in a historic district is
  >well-settled law, since I know of so many churches which are in historic
  >districts. Can someone point me to a prominent case which I can cite?
  >
  >In Springfield, the Roman Catholic Diocese is trying to advance an argument that
  >including one of its church in a historic district is a violation of the
  >separation of church and state.
  >
  >Thanks,
  >
  >Ralph Slate
  >Springfield, MA 
  >
  >******************************
  >For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
  >Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly. PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.
  >MassHistPres mailing list
  >MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
  >http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
  >******************************** 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ******************************
  For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.
  MassHistPres mailing list
  MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
  http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
  ********************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20091208/303be0d2/attachment.htm>