[MassHistPres] CPA Funds for Historic Preservation of a Church

[Jim Wald]

Amherst for several years proposed CPA funding for local churches, and 
as Chair of the Historical Commission, and later, a member of the Select 
Board, I successfully argued that Town Meeting should approve these 
allocations.

Every year, someone would get up on a soap box to rant and rave about 
the First Amendment, and I would patiently try to point out that this 
had nothing to do with the issue: we were not supporting religion. 
Rather, we were asserting a public interest in the preservation of a 
historic structure viewable from the public way; it was about the 
building, not what went on inside. (The principle of federal grants for 
churches was affirmed some 15 years ago, reversing an earlier decision.)


A change in the Massachusetts landscape came with a suit involving Acton 
last year, when the court ruled that CPA money going to churches was not 
supposed to advance religion as such:

https://www3.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/03/09/churches-can-receive-taxpayer-money-but-not-when-advances-religious-cause-sjc-says/GTY4Kitt8YxCDHKMcenlZN/story.html?arc404=true

Churches can receive taxpayer money but not when it advances a religious 
cause

TIMOTHY TAI FOR THE BOSTON GLOBE/FILE 2016
Acton Congregational Church.
By Travis Andersen GLOBE STAFF  MARCH 09, 2018
Churches in Massachusetts can receive taxpayer funds in some 
circumstances, but not for projects that support their core religious 
activities, the state’s highest court ruled Friday.

The Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion in a case involving the 
Acton Congregational Church.

Acton Town Meeting members in 2016 approved Community Preservation Act 
grants totaling $51,237 for restoration of the church’s stained glass 
windows and $49,500 to develop a master plan for its main building and 
two adjacent houses that it rents out. All three buildings date back to 
the mid-19th century.

A group of Acton residents sued the town in Middlesex Superior Court in 
an effort to block the disbursement of funds, arguing the grant 
allocations violated a provision of the state constitution barring 
public expenditures for “founding, maintaining or aiding any church.”


A Superior Court judge denied the plaintiffs’ request to block the 
payments while the litigation was pending. But the SJC on Friday 
reversed the lower court ruling by a 5-1 margin, granting the 
plaintiffs’ request for an order blocking the payouts while both sides 
continue to litigate the matter. The case now returns to Superior Court.

Writing for the majority, SJC Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants said in his 
47-page opinion that the state constitution has no absolute ban on 
churches receiving public funds.

The plaintiffs, he wrote, contend that the constitution “requires an 
‘unequivocal and unqualified’ ban on the grant of public funds to 
churches. We disagree.”

Gants said public funds can lawfully go to churches for historic 
preservation in certain cases, such as when “historical events of great 
significance occurred in the church, or where the grants are limited to 
preserving church property with a primarily secular purpose.”

However, Gants wrote, the grants in the Acton case could violate the 
rights of town residents who don’t subscribe to the church’s beliefs.

“The proposed grants would be used to renovate the main church building, 
where the church conducts its worship services, and its stained glass 
windows, which feature explicit religious imagery and language,” Gants 
wrote. “For town residents who do not subscribe to the church’s beliefs, 
the grants present a risk that their liberty of conscience will be 
infringed, especially where their tax dollars are spent to preserve the 
church’s worship space and its stained glass windows.”

Gants said the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed on the merits of their 
claim with respect to the stained glass grant,” but “further discovery” 
is required for assessing the master plan grant. The SJC ordered the 
town to provide discovery evidence to the plaintiffs.

Rachel Laser, executive director of Americans United for the Separation 
of Church and State, a group that helped represent the plaintiffs, 
hailed the ruling in a statement.

“Today is a good day for religious freedom in Massachusetts,” Laser 
said. “Money taken from the taxes of all citizens should go to funding 
projects for the public good, not religious imagery in houses of worship.”

Laser said, “Houses of worship have long relied on private donations to 
grow and prosper. This decision affirms that great tradition and reminds 
us that the independence and integrity of religion are best preserved 
when government money does not fund houses of worship.”

Nina Pickering-Cook, a lawyer for the town, also cast the ruling as a 
partial victory.

She said in a phone interview that the town is pleased the SJC ruled 
there’s no “outright” ban on public funds going to churches for historic 
preservation “or any public purpose.”

At the same time, she said, the ruling could have a “chilling effect” on 
the willingness of cities and towns to preserve historic buildings.

“The town has always believed these historic resources [deserve] 
protection, regardless of who owns them,” said Pickering-Cook, a partner 
at Anderson & Kreiger in Boston. “The town needs to look carefully at 
the stained glass window grant application in light of the ruling.”

The Rev. Sue Remick, interim senior minister of Acton Congregational 
Church, declined to comment Friday.

In her dissenting opinion, SJC Associate Justice Elspeth B. Cypher noted 
that a recent US Supreme Court ruling in a case out of Missouri, Trinity 
Lutheran vs. Comer, struck down that state’s denial of “public grants to 
religiously-affiliated applicants as a violation of the free exercise 
clause.”

Quoting from the Supreme Court ruling, Cypher said the high court found 
states cannot force grant applicants to renounce their “religious 
character in order to participate in an otherwise generally available 
public benefit program,” absent a compelling state interest.

Friday’s majority SJC ruling, Cypher wrote, places a historic church 
with an active congregation at “a distinct disadvantage” when seeking 
preservation funds, compelling the church to renounce its religious 
character to participate in the grant program.

Her words were echoed by Elizabeth Slattery, a legal fellow at the 
right-leaning Heritage Foundation, a policy think tank. Slattery said in 
a statement that denying “a church access to state funds for 
preservation of its historic building cuts against the reasoning of 
[the] Trinity Lutheran” case.

“In Trinity Lutheran, the Supreme Court recognized that churches do not 
have to give up their religious identity in order to compete with 
secular organizations for state funds,” Slattery said. “The court has 
repeatedly ruled against laws that require people to ‘choose between 
their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.’ ”


It was, in my opinion, a stupid ruling, but it caused sone consternation 
or excessive caution on the part of some communities.

Example: as this was working its way through the courts, Amherst Town 
Meeting approved funding to repair the steeple of the 1830s former 
Second Congregational Church, which 50 years ago this year became the 
Jewish Community of Amherst.

Town Hall put the brakes on the payout until things settled out but then 
went ahead to approve the payment: ensuring the structural and 
historical integrity of a steeple could not in any way be seen as 
connected with the religious activity that took place inside.

- - -

Editorial: Churches worthy of CPA money for historic preservation
https://www.gazettenet.com/Editorial-Churches-should-continue-to-get-Community-Preservation-Act-money-for-historic-preservation-12629822

Editorial: Churches worthy of CPA money for historic preservation


Published: 10/4/2017 7:50:17 PM
Related stories
Enduring beauty: Restoration work begins on Tiffany window at First Churches
Some of the oldest examples of New England architecture are found in 
18th- and 19th-century churches that stand front and center on 
picturesque commons in Franklin and Hampshire county towns.

Residents are proud of the dignity and history of these iconic 
buildings. Yet, the dwindling congregations of those churches are often 
unable to pay for large structural repairs and restorations. To remedy 
this, communities increasingly turn to the Community Preservation Act, 
voting to use local tax dollars to keep historic churches intact, as the 
public assets they are.

This remedy is threatened by a case now before the Massachusetts Supreme 
Judicial Court, “George Caplan, et al. v. Town of Acton.” Invoking 
separation of church and state principles, the plaintiffs challenge the 
town’s use of CPA grants “to refurbish stained glass windows with 
religious imagery, and to make other repairs that would improve the 
condition of the Church for its congregants.”

The Community Preservation Act was signed into law in 2000 as a 
smart-growth tool to help communities preserve open space and historic 
sites, creates affordable housing and develop outdoor recreational 
facilities. Voters determine whether the act will be adopted in a 
community. If so, they agree to levy an additional property tax of up to 
3 percent for such projects. The money has been matched, in varying 
percentages over the years, by the commonwealth.


A local CPA committee reviews applications and recommends which should 
receive funding.

As of November 2016, Amherst, Belchertown, Easthampton, Hadley, 
Hatfield, Northampton, Pelham and Southampton in Hampshire County, and 
Conway, Deerfield, Leverett, Northfield, Shutesbury, Sunderland and 
Whately in Franklin County have adopted the CPA.

Since its inception, the act has been used to shore up historic 
religious structures. Here are a few such projects in our area:


In Northampton, century-old Tiffany windows at First Churches are being 
restored with CPA funds.

In Amherst, voters awarded the Jewish Community of Amherst money to fix 
the steeple, damaged by a lightning strike.

In Northfield, CPA money helped repair the foundation and preserve 
stained glass windows in First Parish Church, built in 1879.

The projects benefit the communities as a whole and must be approved by 
the governing body of each town or city, which we believe provides 
adequate assurances about separation of church and state.

These public funds come with restrictions that safeguard their use for 
approved projects. In Conway, for example, the United Congregational 
Church, which dates back to 1885, was awarded $100,000 three years ago 
to remediate mold. When the church was structurally damaged by a tornado 
in February, the church repaid the taxpayers’ $100,000 investment 
because it cannot save the church’s bell tower and thus will be 
destroying the historic character of the church the grant was intended 
to preserve.

Across the commonwealth, more than 300 projects involving religious 
institutions have been funded through this preservation program. Without 
its backing, small towns in particular are in danger of losing key 
structures in their streetscapes.

The court is expected to rule within months on the town of Acton’s 
decision to award state and local funds to the historic church.

Our message to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is: Communities, 
not just the congregations of the churches in question, benefit when 
churches get CPA money, and they should continue to be eligible.

- - -

Iconic acorn caps historic preservation project at Jewish Community of 
Amherst
https://www.gazettenet.com/JCC-Steeple-hg-021919-23477873

By ANGELA KIRCHNER
For the Gazette
Published: 2/18/2019 12:03:38 AM
AMHERST — The Jewish Community of Amherst is nearly finished with the 
reconstruction of its historic steeple following the reinstallation of 
the steeple’s wooden acorn last week.

The steeple was restored with Community Preservation Act funds, along 
with contributions from the JCA itself. After a lightning strike hit the 
steeple in August 2014, it was discovered that the wood siding and 
support beams inside the steeple were rotting.

The JCA was awarded a CPA grant for $244,683 from the town for the 
project and the organization contributed approximately $27,000 toward 
the project. Thayer Street Associates of South Deerfield was hired to do 
the work.

Eric Weiss, president of the JCA, said the CPA money played a large part 
in the decision to restore the steeple rather than take it down.


“We really appreciate the support we have gotten from the town of 
Amherst,” Weiss said.

Weiss credited Rabbi Benjamin Weiner for gaining much of the community 
support for the project. Steeples are uncommon for a synagogue and 
Robert Solosko, chairman of the building and grounds committee for the 
JCA, said the restoration was done largely for historical purposes.

“It’s not a registered historical building but this is part of the 
historical nature of east Amherst,” Solosko said.

The JCA is located in the former Second Congregational Church of 
Amherst. It was built in 1837, and is the work of local architect Warren 
Howland. The acorn on top of the steeple was considered Howland’s 
signature, according to JCA.

The steeple had been leaning for many years, and Solosko said the JCA 
tried to stabilize it in 1989. The organization was not aware of the 
extent of the wood rot until after the 2014 lightning strike. It was 
discovered at that time that the siding was rotted all the way to the 
top and through the acorn.

Solosko said the acorn was, “so rotted out we realized it could’ve 
fallen down at any time.”

The restored acorn was carved from a piece of 200-year-old reclaimed 
lumber, Solosko said. It was returned to the JCA last week and 
reinstalled on the steeple, though its placement was delayed for a day 
by a snowstorm.

The cost of repairing the acorn was not in the original project estimate 
and was paid for by the JCA. Prior to the restoration, Solosko said the 
steeple was hard to maintain and needed to be painted every few years. 
The restoration included measures to cut down on maintenance costs, such 
as siding with zinc-coated copper metal sheeting.

“It will probably last 100 years or more,” Solosko said.

The project was supposed to be completed in November 2018, but work was 
slowed down by the extent of rotting in the support beams and the 
difficulty of the metalwork. These issues led the project farther into 
winter, which brought weather delays as well. The scaffolding is 
scheduled to come down by the end of this week.


- - -

Bottom line: communities are more cautious now than before, but now, as 
then, funding for churches is possible, and ultimately, it may take a 
court case to block a project.

As for other funding sources, you might consider the National Fund for 
Sacred Cases

https://sacredplaces.org/reimagine-your-sacred-place/national-fund/


Jim Wald
(past Chair, Amherst Historical Commission)




On 07/10/2019 09:09, sally milne wrote:
> Hi Amy,
>     Maybe you know the CPC coalition website below. A quick search in 
> the historic category with an entry for churches shows quite a few 
> projects completed with CPA funds. A lot depends on your committee 
> make up.  After all the church is the congregation , not the building. 
>   Recently a church in Chatham finished a church project with CPA funds.
> We have a Baptist church , the oldest on Cape Cod in terrible repair. 
> Anyone know of other sources for these historic churches?
> Good Luck
> Sally Urbano
> Harwich
>
> https://www.communitypreservation.org/databank/projectsdatabase/access
>
>> On Oct 5, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Amy Ritterbusch <hdcchair at hopkintonma.gov 
>> <mailto:hdcchair at hopkintonma.gov>> wrote:
>>
>> We have a beautiful church in Hopkinton on the Common (2 Main Street 
>> <https://sites.google.com/hopkintonma.gov/historical-properties/by-street-name/main-street>) 
>> right by the Marathon start line. Its steeple is in need of an 
>> expensive renovation and the congregation does not have the funds 
>> right now for the renovation, although they would like to preserve 
>> it. Our town has adopted the Community Preservation Act and I believe 
>> CPA funds can in theory be used for private homes and buildings, but 
>> our Assistant Town Manager told me that the use of funds for 
>> religious institutions has been the subject of litigation in the past 
>> (separation of church and state). So I was wondering if anyone had 
>> any experience in getting grants to assist in the restoration of a 
>> church or other religious structure and how they went about it. The 
>> church right now is NOT in a local Historic District, but it may be 
>> possible to add it to the Historic District at a future town meeting, 
>> especially if that meant grant funding would be available. We'd hate 
>> to see the historic steeple come down and it is not fully protected 
>> right now since it is not in a district. I think everyone involved 
>> wants to see it preserved, but it is just the cost that is an 
>> obstacle at the moment.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Amy
>>
>> -- 
>> Amy Ritterbusch
>> Chair, Hopkinton Center Historic District Commission 
>> <https://www.hopkintonma.gov/hhdc/>
>> Facebook @HopkintonHistoricDistrict 
>> <https://www.facebook.com/HopkintonHistoricDistrict/>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email 
>> account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the 
>> *Massachusetts Public Records Law 
>> <http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/preidx.htm>*.
>>
>> Visit us online at *www.hopkintonma.gov <http://www.hopkintonma.gov/>.*
>> _______________________________________________
>> MassHistPres mailing list
>> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu>
>> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20191007/9a1aa1bc/attachment-0001.html>