BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws

Subject: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:12 PM

This is going to be a highly controversial thread. What do we do when freedm of religious practice clashes with local zoning regulations ? As an example, I am going to use my local residential area which is the Town Of Ramapo located in Rockland County,N.Y. Most of the earlier residents moved up here from New York City to escape from the hustle & bustle of crowded city life, and have houses built on land parcels of one acre or larger. They have enacted strict zoning ordinances against high density housing and multi-family dwellings, in order to protect this high quality of life that they hold so dear. Some have even gone so far as to form separate independent villages within the town, such as Wesley Hills, New Hempstead, Airmont,and Montebello, in order to have even more control over their zoning future. The other side of the coin is that in the last 25 years, there has been a tremendous influx of Orthodox Jews,and Hassidic Jews in particular that have come up here from Brooklyn. The first problem occurred when the Orthodox Jews started to build neighborhood synagogues. As you know, our religion prohibits us from riding on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays. Therefore, we require synagogues that are within easy walking distance of our houses. The town and local villages would not let us locate houses of worship within the local residential area. Residents went to court with the village of Airmont over this issue, and the case went to the Supreme Court. The Jews won the case and the village of Airmont had to pay out over one million dollars in legal fees. Now another issue has arisen. Many of the Hassidic families have as many as 10 or 15 children. When the children grow up and marry, they all want to live in the same community within proximity of their parents. There are now several lawsuits pending against the Town of Ramapo and the various villages,which say that the zoning laws which forbid high density and multi-family housing are discriminatory against Orthodox Jews. I would like to get the input of some of my fellow Mudcatters on this issue which is now a very hot potato in local politics. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:29 PM

Rabbi, I think one reality in this situation is that sometimes, law and due process will have to be involved-- lawsuits challenging local ordinances as has been described above.

Longer-term options include electing people into office and onto boards who will represent the WHOLE community, not just the majority. Where local coalition-building can be done, effective allies can be won and candidates supported.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:39 PM

Susan, Right now the community is totally divided and polarized. You have the Orthodox Jews on one side, and the secular non observant Jews allied with the Gentiles on the other side. Our Town Supervisor, the Honorable Christopher St. Lawrence (who is obviously not Jewish), is trying very desparately to reach a compromise. He is however being accused of favoring the Orthodox position and of taking payoffs from builders who want to build the new housing. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Once Famous
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:47 PM

Rabbi-Sol, as a reform Jew who is far from secular and is part of the greater Chicago Jewish community, I'm afraid compromise is going to be your best bet.

Flexibility is a mitzvah.

Good luck with the red tape.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:55 PM

I have no problem with locating a shul in a residential neighborhood. However, this seems to be a very different issue. As you express it, the problem is that children, as they become adults and establish their own households, want to live in the same community within proximity of their parents. I do not make any claim to be an expert on Orthodox Judeism, and especially not on Hassids, but I don't think that there is any requirement that adult children be able to visit their parents on the Sabbath (walking, of course) or that they attend the same synagogue.    It would be nice, of course, but they may have to settle for living elsewhere, bringing the grandchildren over on Sunday, and waiting for a house to become available in their neighborhood of choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:58 PM

Martin,
          We are willing to compromise. It is the other side that is not willing to see their suburban quality of life get flushed down the latrine. Tempers at all public hearings are running high and anti-semitic remarks are sometimes blatant.

                                              SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:04 PM

I bought a house in a country village. On a Sunday morning I am often woken up by the church bells. I am not a Christian, should I sue?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:06 PM

You are right artbrooks. It is not a religious requirement that the children live in proximity to their parents. However, they are approaching it from another legal angle. Being that these people are poor and can not afford the expensive single family dwellings, they claim that the laws were specificly crafted to keep them out. Their claim is that the Town & Villages have a legal obligation to set aside areas for low and middle income housing, and failure to do so constitutes discrimination. That is the issue currently before the courts. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:09 PM

I would submit that while it is inconvenient to abide by the zoning laws, it is not discriminatory aginst Jews in the usual sense. Any law could be said to be discriminatory against anyone who felt inconvenienced by it. The remedy is usally to get the law changed. Preferably by persuasion of the board, rather than by claiming to be victimized by a condition which is innocent of any intent to victimize.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:10 PM

Guest, It is interesting that you mention this. There is a case currently before the courts in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn, N.Y. One synagogue has a siren on its roof that sounds on Friday afternoon, right before sundown, to signal the onset of the Sabbath. The neighbors are in court trying to silence this siren. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:19 PM

Well, I find that nmost people who make a difference in the world experience a range of successes and blockages, and they don't all run on the same timeline. In other words, the short term view is you describe is a tense, difficult, probably dangerous situation, certainly an unfair one. One can pick one's battles, though, with the short, medium, and long ranges in mind.

The ADL, for instance, can get involved in the blatant anti-semitic features descibed above, while others can work on the other aspects, in a more longterm mode--simultaneously, quietly, one relationship at a time. That's where the deeper difference has to be built, because it will be about hearts and minds, not ordinances; hopefully the ordinances of the future will arise from that level of community-building.

Our culture, no matter how much we who are religious hope to remain separate from it, seems always to seek the instant solution, and our culture is also predisposed right now to polarize individuals along lines of perceived "fairness." Sometimes it's good to look not so much at the fairness side of the issue, but at the practical one-- to decline the urgencies shouted by the polarized of both sides, and listen to the deeper, quieter voice within?

If discrimination against a group as Jews per se is at issue, the best source for allies historically has been groups advocating for members of other groups similarly targeted. Has anyone from the NAACP, for instance, tried to view properties for sale, to document patterns of discrimination in the area?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:28 PM

Amos. Our opponents are trying to get the law changed. At present, in addition to the Town Supervisor, we have 3 town councilmen who are elected at large, by the whole town. They are trying to institute a ward system, by which councilmen are elected to represent specific areas and villages within the town. They want to increase the town board from 3 to 7. In this way, they are hoping to dilute the Orthodox bloc vote. Supervisor St. Lawrence is opposed to this and has denied their petition. They are appealing his denial to the courts. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:36 PM

A siren? That does sound pretty loud and intrusive. But is it? How long does it sound and what is the sound? Was it built after the houses that the occupants are complaining live in? I wouldn't want a factory to be built near enough to me, and then blast a siren at sundown just as the kids are trying to get to sleep. But maybe it isn't that loud or near? Could you describe it please.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 06:51 PM

Susan,
       There is really no racial discrimination of any significance in our area. There are many African American families living in our midst. Of course, being that they are homeowners they are not really classified as poor. One of the Town Councilmen, (or woman in this case), is Fran Hunter who is an executive in the NAACP.

Also, the anti-semitic remarks have been made by various individuals, not by any organized group.

The ADL can not get involved because some of the people opposing us are secular Jews, who feel more akin to the Gentiles than they do to their Orthodox brethren,
                                           SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:02 PM

Guest,
         The siren sounds for all of 5 seconds. It is not any louder than the fire engines that regularly pass by there. It was built after the houses that already exist there which are all pre- World War 2 construction.    SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:06 PM

Doesn't sound anything wrong with that then. Some folks just love to complain I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:24 PM

Well, think about what you have said, Rabbi. The reason you moved to this area is because it was attractive from a density viewpoint. Others who have bought in that area probably feel very much the same. Now you want to change that density to allow your neighborhood to become something more in lines of what you left to escape the hustle and bustle? Hmmmmmm? I mean no disrespect here but it seems that if you liked the neigborhood for it's lower densities then you have no right to make a stink to change it...

It's kinda like a guy buying a house next to an adult book store then complaining to the governemnt about it...

I'd advice you to leave the neighborhood as you found it if you now wnat to develope or redevelope it to meet your changed needs.

Again, I mean no disrespect but it would appear that you may be disrespecting the neighborhood that you choose to move to.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:24 PM

Well, Rabbi Sol---as you said at the outset--- a.highly controversial thread. But surely interesting and one that opens many areas of thought.

I say, at the outset, that I live in the same county. Different area though.

In my area there are areas zoned for the larger residences---as you stated and also there are areas with zoning for a higher density. Our problems have come from higher density senior citizen housing. This goes to show that such problems are inherent in any community for a variety of reasons.

Being a bit cynical I would suppose that your town supervisor--St. Lawrence (who I undrstand to be a fine gentleman) is looking at the bottom line as most politicos do.   Moreso he is looking at votes---probably a more accurate statement than the last one.

As to the children of Hassidim living in proximity of their parents, etc; Frankly, were zoning laws changed for that purpose it would, to me, smack of favoritism. We all would like our children (if they want) nearby. How many grown children have moved ( in this area) some 50 or 60 miles north because of the lower prices. Prices here have risen astronomically. Is it not then a bias if zoning were changed for that reason for a given community?   

As an aside I offer an anecdote that I personally witnessed many years back. A neighbor (Jewish)--and one I know well---organized a protest against an Orthodox group that wanted to buy a house to use as a place of worship that was within their walking distance. He organized Jews, Christians, you name them. Well, he won. To me he was a true study in hypocrisy since none of this would have had any effect on him===other than the house in question was 3 away from his. The point here is that, as in you area, people are worrying about property values rather than the "bucolic" things to which they refer.

A final (well, almost) thought. I must say--and you know that I am nominally a co-religionist--that some areas of (all others please excuse the local references here) Kiryas Joel (Hassidic), New Square (Hassidic) are surely comparable to the Southern shantytowns in their appearance and upkeep.   

I do not mean this as a "knock". Rather as an observation as to why, perhaps, there is some opposition.

But, in synopsis, children do not have to live near their parents even though it would be nice---our economy, sadly, precludes this many times. Zoning should benefit the community and politicians will always go where the vote is.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:45 PM

Bobert,
         If you look at the history of our country every big city and urban area started out as a small village with low population density. Eventually, as the area becomes more attractive and desirable to live in, you get an influx of people. It is called progress, and you can not stand in the way of it. The only thing you can hope to do is to control the growth so that the surrounding infrastructure and services (i.e. sewers, water, roads. etc.) keeps up with the housing boom. But to say that I do not want a certain type of people here because they look different, dress different, or worship different, or have more children than others, is not the proper way to control that growth. Supervisor St. Lawrence has developed a master plan for the town that calls for "controlled growth" including certain areas that are set aside for Parks, that can never be used for residential or industrial development. However, the opposition does not want to compromise at all on this issue. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:50 PM

The allies do not have to live in the affected area to join the effort, Rabbi. Allies are everywhere, but they are often somewhat in hiding and have to be found via relationship. Please, remain open to seeing them beneath their disguises, even in these trying circumstances. I wish I was there to stand with you.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 07:56 PM

Sounds bloody silly. When the town I live in was built, as one of the New Towns back in the 50s and 60s, there was specific provision made for sites for religious buildings scattered around throughout the residential areas. Even before they had any idea what sort of religious buildings they were going to be.
And any time it became clear there was a need for an extra church, meeting house, synagogue, mosque or whatever, planning approval on a suitable site has never been any sort of problem, and it never will be.

It sounds to me as if there's some kind of idolatry of private property rights going on in Ramapo.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 08:12 PM

issues of this type are part of the reason that the Amish choose to live in areas where their 'different' practices do not conflict with others......and yet, they get complaints about slow buggies blocking traffic and such. Muslims have dress requirements for women that conflict with some school or work dress codes. In Texas, I understand, there is a town where Mormons who practice polygamy have established an 'enclave' close by, and are looking for favorable school and tax rulings.

It is indeed a fine line we walk between discrimination and simply having rules that are generally fair for all.

In this case, I would think that those who choose to move to a community with already established covenants should NOT expect the rules to be altered specifically to accomodate them.

I don't see any short term solution, and LONG term only works if one group has a large majority....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 08:19 PM

No, Sol, you are not entirely correct. There are plenty of places who have actively kept out growth. You argument that spawl is the American way of life and therefore an acceptable model for each and every community is not convincing.

Let me give you an example. I own commercial property in Leesburg, Va and am right in the middle a similar issues and, in this case, am pro *re*development and increase densitity as it fits with the ideals of the existing residents. If the plan that my group has been working on for the last two years to redelepoe some 20 acres inside the town is met with stiff resistence then I will rethink the plan...

But that's not the example...

Now, if you bother to look it up, you will find that Loudoun County. Va. is the fastest growing county in the nation yet just 4 miles west of Leesburg, which is the county seat, there is a village called Waterford. Now I'm not sure how Waterford matches up to your neighborhood but it has old homes, nice sized lots and low density. Not one new home has been build in that village over the last 20 years and I would doublt that there will be a new one built in the next 20. Sprwl is *not* inevitable and saying it is not going to win over any of the folks who may be opposing your *new* vision for your neighbothood...

Sorry, you said this mnight be controversal, and it is. All I am saying is that you're going to have to come up with better arguments if you expect to win over the folks you you now think as obstructionists. It might serve you well to think how you might react if one of your neighbors was trying to get a zoning change to allow them to put an adult book store next door to you.

Don't shoot the messenger here. You asked. Your argument isn't with me but I can certainly help you emphathize with those who do not want you (and "yer kind"... jus' funnin') messing with where they and their parents and grandparents have lived going back over 100 years... Melodramic? Well sure. But it's what you will have to overcome to suceed...

"But, Mrs. Smith, it's enevitable! You want some fat cat to come in and do it 'er let me and my folks do it" arguement is a deadend.

Think dollars here. People like 'em and don't like having to leave the home they have been in for 45 years because some rich folks came up from the city and messed up everything and now they can't afford to pay the increased taxes. Denisity is costly. More schools, hookups, etc... The locality has to put out more than they get back for many years to come... Mr & Mrs Smith's get shafted and end up living their "golden years " in crappy old folks joints because they can't afford the taxes 'caused by sprawl... Yeah, they thought they would be able to stay in the home where littel Jimmy and little Johnny were born and wetre raised and played baseball (sniff) right down the street where you want to put up a church, 'er house, 'er whatever...

So, Sol, there are two ways to succeed and one of them does not resemble success: force folks to acdept your vision or...

... find ways for your vision and theirs to become a *new vsiion*..

You "force" it and God won't like you one danged bit.

Get my drift?

I've been at this stuff fir a long time now and if it ain't win-win then it's lose-lose...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST,Fieldvole
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:03 PM

Rabbi-sol, sorry but I'm with Bobert on this one,

These people, whatever colour or creed they were, moved to this
location for the benefits that the location AND zoning laws offered
them. They enjoyed these benefits for many years, (in the process no
doubt stopping others doing what they wanted by invoking these laws).
They now want to overturn these zoning laws because it suits them
to do so, for their own benefit, and are using their religion as a
weapon.

Laws are laws, they are made for the community as a whole, not just
a small (or maybe not so small, it doesn't matter) group of them.

Also to expect other people within this community to give up what
they have enjoyed for many years for someone elses religious beliefs,
(which are nobody elses business but their own, as they would be the
first to tell you if you tried to interfere with them) is totally
wrong!

No, if these people want more houses, churches, whatever, then they
must abide by the laws that are in existance, take what they can get
within the law as it stands, and, if they can't get enough then they
should move to where they can get what they want. NOT impose
THEIR rules on other people.

When it comes down to it, religion has very little to do with it,
this is just a question of one group trying to force their ideas on
a community which made laws to *prevent* what they are trying to do.
(and who shouldn't be put in the position of trying to defend themselves against this sort of thing).

Best wishes

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: John Routledge
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:11 PM

Thanks Bill D, Bobert and Fieldvole.

Nice to see logic and fairness prevailing in what is admittedly a delicate subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 09:43 PM

Bobert,

         The people who are opposing us are not those who have lived here for 3 or more generations. Most of them have come up here from the city themselves, maybe 20 or 15 years before we did. They came up here to escape from us in their old neighborhoods and now they have to deal with us again in a new venue.

As far as the schools go, our people pay the lion's share of the school taxes in the East Ramapo Central School District. However, we all send our children to Jewish parochial schools (Yeshiva), where we have to pay expensive tuition. We have no benefits from the public school taxes that we pay, other than school bus transportation. This is perhaps the only public school district in the United States where 75% of the children attend parochial school. But we still have to pay the public school taxes.

Despite what people think, property values here have gone way up and not down. 20 years ago, I purchased my house for $200,000. If I wanted to sell today I have been offered in excess of $800,000, an increase of over 4 fold. With all the new expensive houses being built here, the tax base has gone way up so the tax rates do not have to increase as much. We are pouring a lot of money into the town tax coffers, to the benefit of those who are opposing us. So the argument that the locality has to put out more than they get back to support us does not hold water. We are paying the bulk of the taxes.

Our people make up the majority of the all volunteer local fire department as well as the local all volunteer ambulance corps.

The argument of our opponents is not so much based upon what development takes place. They are more concerned with who is doing the developing. The zoning laws are just an excuse to keep us from becoming the majority here, which we soon will be. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:08 PM

Bill Hahn,
            I understand and respect your position. The situation in Orangetown where you live is quite different from that here in Ramapo.
Orthodox Jews do not have a very visible presence there, and the majority of the residents favor keeping the zoning laws the way they are. For somone to come in and want to change them against the will of the majority would be wrong. However, here in Ramapo, where we have a very large and highly visible orthodox community, our needs must be taken into account. Supervisor, St. Lawrence, though he may be politicaly motivated realizes this fact and is trying to deal with it fairly. I agree with you that in some Hassidic communities such as New Square, the residents do not keep up their properties the way they should. Kiryas Joel in Orange County does keep up the village in a presentable manner. My father in law goes their quite regularly and can attest to that fact. However, any change in zoning law must come with strict penalties for those who do not maintain their property according to code. I am very proud of my neighborhood and would not want to see it deteriorate into a slum. The zoning changes proposed by the Master Plan would be limited to certain areas only and would not impact the entire Ramapo. But the opposition does not want to give an inch on this, even though most of them live far away from the proposed density zones. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:19 PM

Sol:

Go back and reread yer response to me...

Seems like its less about density than the contractor who is gonna get the contract. Is that what you are concerned about?

I'm having trouble getting a fix on your sitaution. It seems to go from visions, to densities to bucks...

Tell ya' what, Sol. If you are capable of makin' the case that the "opposition" is making then maybe I, or someone here, might have some advice to offer you that you might find helpful.

But, based on yer story up to now which seems to chnage with every new post, I will warn you that I might just find myself on the side of the opposition...

But we won't know unless you come clean with the issues that sepaerate your side from the "opposition"...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:29 PM

Bobert,
       When I say who is doing the developing, I am not referring to the contractor. What I mean is "What kind of people will be moving in to these developments" ? If it is people like them there is no problem. If it is people like me (beard and yarmulke), they suddenly have a problem. By the way, our side is being represented legally, pro bono by The Rutherford Institute of Virginia who takes on all    " Freedom Of Religion Cases". SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:48 PM

Sol,

Like I said earlier, irregardless of law suits, there are only two ways that these things are solved: win-win or lose-lose (perhaps thought to be win-lose but win-lose is in the big picture lose-lose).

I am less impressed with what legal firm is going to represent you than your ability to argue the other sides case. If you can not do that than this thread is bogus..

Think about it...

I'm trying real hard here. I've gotten you to the water. Drinking it is your choice.

Unless you are capable and willing to look beyond *your* side then you are allready in the loser category in my book. I mean no disrespect here but life isn't about winning law suits but being able to find common ground or selling visions.

If you just want to argue *your* side, count me out. I'm not into that when it come to land use... That ain't me...

But if you want some advice that I've learned the *hard way* about getting along with your neighbors than argue *their* case... and we'll go from there...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:10 PM

Their side is a very simple argument. We came up here from NYC to get away from the urban life and have some peace and quiet. We passed certain zoning laws to protect our new found life style. Now you want to come up here and spoil that peace an quiet by urbanizing this town. We are going to stop you by using the zoning laws that we passed. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:17 PM

Rabbi SOL...in your original post, you state clearly that the current problem is that current zoning laws make it difficult for orthodox Jews to live 'the way they want to', that is, in large, extended families, often in the same house, I gather.

Then, by the latest post it is " If it is people like me (beard and yarmulke), they suddenly have a problem". So, which is the problem, zoning laws, or prejudice? I have NO doubt that prejudice exists, but prejudice by itself does not necessarily justify changing zoning laws.
Theoretically, it seems, these people 'could' live nearby without high-density exceptions to the laws, especially since they won the suit to allow houses of worship within walking distance.

I, myself, do not care for restrictive covenants, but I simply can't judge whether the current zoning laws are for the general good, or whether they violate basic human rights.

You DID ask for opinions...now you need to ask yourself if any of the opinions you have gotten make any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:32 PM

My contention is that the zoning laws were created specificly to keep Orthodox and Hasidic Jews in particular out of the area. The lawsuit that was won in Airmont dealt specificly with Synagogues in residential areas. The issue of high density housing is an entirely new one that has yet to be decided by the courts. In starting this thread, I was not looking for everyone to agree with my position. I am looking for opposing views as well, that might shed some additional light on this issue. Bobert has been very helpful in this regard. I said at the outset that this issue is going to be very controversial. I meant it. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 12:06 AM

well, that (prejudice embodied in zoning laws) will be a hard thing to prove. A good lawyer will show cases where similar laws exist without Hasidic Jews trying to get in...etc...

I hope it can be resolved comfortably for everyone, but these things seldom are, hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 06:26 AM

My contention is that the zoning laws were created specificly to keep Orthodox and Hasidic Jews in particular out of the area.
I do not live there, Rabbi-Sol, nor even in the same country but I find this statement very hard to swallow.

In your opening post you stated quite clearly They have enacted strict zoning ordinances against high density housing and multi-family dwellings, in order to protect this high quality of life that they hold so dear. Does that really sound like a policy to exclude Jews of any sect?

You could reallisticaly say it specificaly excludes ANY group that holds the extended family close but surely that would include the devout Catholic and any other faith that holds the family dear?

I'm sorry, Rabbi-Sol, but this should not turn into an anti-semitic issue surely? Make it an elitist issue or a fight to bring (or exclude!) low cost housing to the area. Playing the racist card at every opportunity is a very dangerous move to make. Remember the boy that cried Wolf?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 06:50 AM

A fascinating argument, and not really one susceptible to a compromise solution. Identical, morally, to the "gays in church" ongoing controversy. One side saying "you can't chuck us out, it's discrimination, you mus change your rules"; the other side saying"we've always done it this way, why try and join if you don't like it. Go and start your own". In this case Rabbi Sol is adopting the "let the gays in" position.
There are two fundamentally opposed principles here. Things will only settle down when one side voluntarily loses the will to pursue its case. Which side that will be is not currently guessable.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:22 AM

I think that if you move into a neighbourhood where there are rules already in place you are obliged to accept the established rules of the community. People have rules for a reason and I do feel that communities ought to be respected and allowed to evolve according to the wishes of those living there. I have had the experience of living in a community that had rules, these rules were ignored by new comers and the neighbourhood became just another urban blight..I moved.
   I guess we just need to do our homework and find out what the community by laws are before we move in..if they do not suit us, we should reconsider.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:58 AM

Sol, it seriously sounds as if you are contending that "the powers that be" would permit a varience to the zoning laws if those wanting high-rise apartments (or whatever) were party-hardy college students or a non-religious minority. If true, you have a case. If not, you don't. Sorry, but that's my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Davetnova
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 08:50 AM

This sounds like a situation that has happened before. If we substitute Palestine for Ramapo and Europe for New York.
Perhaps see how the situation there works out.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 09:22 AM

1. Would the zoning laws permit or deny the construction of a Catholic church or a Kingdom Hall or a Mormon stake or a mosque in the neighborhood, as well as a synagogue? If so, I don't see that the law is discriminatory. If, on the other hand, it would deny a synagogue but permit a Druidic grove or a cathedral, the law is discriminating.

2. If you want to have 15 kids and four grandparents living in the same house as mom and dad I don't see where the State gets off in telling you you can't. On the other hand, the government has a legitimate interest in controling the density of use of land. Out here, lots of members of the LDS Church have lots of kids -- they build a big house; but the city ordinances prohibit more than three unrelated people from sharing an apartment (and students still sublet half their bedroom!). There are sewer, water, fire, health, and parking considerations as well.

Just the two cents' worth from someone raised Catholic and living in Idaho (where the Jewish population is admittedly rather small).

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 09:38 AM

I have to say that I kind of agree with the faction that says You moved here because you liked it the way it was; if you want it to be different, you have the freedom to move again.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Tinker
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 10:20 AM

Just to ad a piece of law to the mix. New Jersey has a wide spread problem with the provision of low and moderate income housing. My own community has increasing problems with children being able to afford living in the community. It is not based on race or religion but sheer economics. Each community has been charged with providing housing, but interpretation of the law has varied over time. Some communities have actually contracted with other communities to provide the low and moderate income housing that they should otherwise need to provide within their own borders.

Mount Laurel Ruling

I think the resistance to economic diversity is often much stronger than religious or racial intolerance; although, the combination of both factors is almost guaranteed to be explosive.

Tinker

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 01:31 PM

Rapaire,
          There is no problem with a Catholic church or another Religion's House Of worship. It does not have to be located in the immediate residential area, because people can get into their cars and ride to it. An Orthodox Jewish synagogue on the other hand must be located within easy walking distance because Orthodox Jews are prohibited from riding on the Sabbath, which is the day that Synagogue attendance is at it's highest. This problem is unique to Orthodox Jews and does not exist in any other religion. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 02:04 PM

A new wrinkle has been added to this controversy.

During the Clinton Administration, Congress passed a bill know as RUILPA (Religious Use Institutional Land Permit Act). According to this law, local jurisdictions must set aside land for religious institutional use, and can not use zoning laws to exclude them entirely. Orthodox Jewish Yeshivas and Rabbinical Seminaries in Ramapo are taking advantage of this by building housing for married students, teachers, and their families on the grounds of these schools which are located in residential areas. The housing on these tracts of land will by necessity be high density & low income units. Supervisor St. Lawrence and the Town Board has set aside 3 tracts of land where these institutions will be located. It was the opinion of the Town Attorney, Michael Klein, that the Town must take this action in order to comply with Federal Law. Failure to do so can open up the possibility of lawsuits, not only against the Town, but against the Board Members and Supervisor personally, as has been done in other parts of the country. The opposition has accused the Town Board of running scared and has urged them to take the Feds to court and challenge the constitutionality of RUILPA. They have filed their own lawsuit against the Town to try to force them to challenge the law rather than comply with it. All in all, it is a big mess with tempers flaring everywhere. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 02:07 PM

So if my religion demands that I have to walk to a folk club on Saturday nights, Stoke City Council has to allow me to build one by my house? This thread is geting weirder and weirder.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 03:03 PM

That is right Greg. If Folk Music is your religion, it is protected by our Constitution, assuming we still have one if "W" gets 4 more years. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Once Famous
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 04:02 PM

And if sex is your religion they should be allowed to build a whorehouse!

Well, maybe in Nevada.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 05:16 PM

Well, Rabbi Sol, I can believe almost anything about America, but I refuse to believe that you have a constitution that says you can do whatever you like, as long as your religion says you should.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 05:40 PM

I think the misunderstanding here lies in what is perceived as "constitional"-and what is local zoning ord.The Constitution gives freedom of speech, religion and more. It does NOT, however, say what Greg thinks it says---"...do whatever you like,etc;" Bigamy, for one thing, is outlawed in the country---the Mormons notwithstanding.   

RUILPA to which Sol refers --and I am not familiar with it--is law passed by Congress and different from a Cositutional Right. If I read what Sol wrote correctly it mandates a place must be made for a religious edifice in a given area. In my town there are churches and synagogues---as there are in Ramapo. The problem arises in the desire of having it in such proximity that it is within walking distance.   

It seems that Mr. St Lawrence--to whom Sol refers is trying to broker a happy compromise.   The "within walking distance" matter is not something that is mandated by any law I know of. I refer to my earlier posting wherein I described the--rather unfair--disallowing of an Orthodox Synagogue in my town because it was in a private home and was fought by both Jews and Christians.   The reasoning,and the legal issue involved ,is that it was not zoned for that use and that there was a synagogue 1/4 mile away---albeit not Orthodox

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 06:08 PM

Rabbi, Why are you not allowed to ride on the Sabbath? And is there no room for this to be updated a little to reflect the changes in society re distances and transport needs.