[MassHistPres] Church sues over district creation

[Chris Walsh]

Aaron Marcavitch wrote:
> Should we assume this is a move because they hoped to tear it down?  I can't think of another reason why they would say this.  
>
>   
>> From: Ralph Slate 
>> The Roman Catholic Diocese of
>> Springfield is suing the city for including a church in a
>> historic district:
>>
>> It's safe to say that this case has enormous impact on
>> historic preservation in the state.
>>
>> The basis for the suit is that historic designation of the
>> church violates freedom of religion, speech, expression,
>> assembly, and equal protection guaranteed under both the US
>> and Massachusetts constitutions. The church is looking to
>> nullify the district and is also seeking compensatory
>> damages.
>>     
I for one am mighty tired of hearing this type of argument. We classify
non-profits as such and give them a free pass on payment of taxes and
often  services that we all pay to keep our community going because they
purportedly  are a "community benefit". What we get for our largess are
groups that see themselves as "above the law". This I believe to be a
serious and intentional misreading of both the Mass and Federal
Constitutions regarding the concept behind of freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion has mutated into the "entitlement of religion" to
sidestep the responsibilities (including the care of architectural
heritage) that comes with being  "part" of a community. If it were just
churches then this venting might be interpreted as  bias against
religions but what is more alarming is that this entitlement attitude
now permeates every aspect of our community life. Colleges,Universities,
State property, Churches and Social Service agencies  use  the tools
like MGL Chapter 40A (aka Dover Amendment) and the threat of lawsuits to
bully local communities into capitulation on even the most basic zoning,
siting and historic preservation issues- much like the Diocese of
Springfield is doing in this example. In my community, (Framingham Ma.)
a powerful private non-profit social service corporation sued the town,
various boards and the board members personally- in federal court-
because they dared to ask this agency to justify their aggressive use of
the Dover Amendment.   So my question is what is the "community benefit"
we are getting here? In the Springfield case it seems pretty obvious
that the Diocese is going to aggressively defend its ability to make a
profit on the development this parcel of land despite being given a long
time break on paying taxes- the community and its architectural heritage
be D****!
I feel it is long past time that we demand accountability and
responsibility come with the " community benefit"  designation and if
groups (like the Springfield Diocese) cannot or will not meet those
standards we should at a minimum demand/sue for back taxes.

Chris Walsh, AIA
Chairman, Framingham Historic District Commission