[MassHistPres] Church sues over district creation

[Joey Glushko]

participants in this discussion might find of interest the "Legal News" 
articles in the Jan. 2010 APA magazine, PLANNING (see p. 9).  In an Illinois 
case, the courts found the denial of a church relocation to be valid; see 
River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, No. 08-2819, 
October 27, 2009 (7th Cir.).
 
Joey Glushko, Planner
Planning and Comm. Devel.
Arlington, MA  02476
Phone:  781-316-3093


-----Original Message-----
From: <slater at alum.rpi.edu>
To: <acornhp at yahoo.com>
Cc: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:31:58 -0800
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Church sues over district creation

>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. 
>
>Sounds like a great opportunity to have a design charette to come up with
>alternative uses for the site and get some developers to pay attention to 
it.
>

The church attorney claimed that government is interfering in its ability to 
dispose of its property, and the attorney advanced the argument that it is 
constitutionally offensive for the church to even have to appear before 
government to request permission to do anything. 

There have been no stated plans, but the site is attractive for retail 
development, being a corner lot in a business district. The church already 
sold one parcel on that corner several years ago to Walgreens -- I think it 
used to have the church's convent on it, which was then demolished. 

I think this brings up some interesting questions -- if a church is exempt 
from being in a historic district, then could a church within a district 
(but exempt) that wanted some extra parking purchase an abutting property 
and then demolish it, claiming that the new property would also be exempt 
because it is now church-owned?

Ralph 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100122/311a5327/attachment.htm>