Saturday, September 13, 2008

The Powers of RLUIPA by Judith Detert-Moriarty

There is a little known federal act which is impacting YOUR life every day and I you probably have never heard about it. Those who have been already living with it's adverse consequences, know it all too well. It's known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). Rarely have bills ever sailed through Congress with unanimous approval (albeit most legislators weren't present to vote) to the President's desk in less than 4 weeks with no public hearings.

Yet, RLUIPA is just such legislation.
In essence, RLUIPA favors the interests of religious institutions over the interests of their secular counterparts rather than it's original intent to p rotect religious believers who may be vulnerable to discrimination. Even if an existing zoning law (signage, historic preservation, parking, at-risk population facilities, etc.) is void of any discrimination, Congress ruled strict new scrutiny needs to be applied to city zoning regulations thus putting the burden of proving a negative (i.e. no religious discrimination) upon the city. Realistically, what cities have the financial where-with-all or tax-payer approval to spend millions proving they are not being prejudicial or discriminating? RLUIPA thus gives religious institutions special rights which other citizens, organizations, and facilities do not enjoy.

Theoretically, RLUIPA can be trumped by "health and safety" concerns, but even that was proven an abstract, dubious recourse in Janesville when it was a very valid concern with the opening of a local facility some years ago - and which remains even today. The fact so few people are even aware of RLUIPA indicates why its danger is very real.

In the past few weeks, RLUIPA has impacted Janesville yet once again when It was the city attorney's opinion that RLUIPA preempts the city from regulating church signs. Any church can threaten to sue a city under RLUIPA (and usually win) when denied anything they want while any other citizen/organization/institution has to abide by existing federal, state, and city regulations and statutes. RLUIPA gives religious landowners a SPECIAL right to challenge land use laws which t heir secular neighbors do not have. Some churches do try to abide by the law and act responsibly for their own, and the community's best interests. Others see this as a new opportunity to make lots of profit and build tax-free empires (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_2_32/ai_77482609 ). The local issue of too-bright light from a church sign may seem very minimal but the same law has led to far more severe problems and damage done since RLUIPA became law in 2000. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20060126.html
When the issue of a prairie planting on a local church property arose this past summer, it was odd that the city attorney didn't also advise the City Council this was a mute question - a waste of Council time and city research - given under RLUIPA the church could plant whatever it wanted on the land even regardless of environmental considerations. It's no wonder organized churches love RLUIPA but states, cities, secular charities, historic preservationists, homeowners, and even legal experts and the courts are seriously concerned.
As one writer confronted with the reality of RLUIPA noted: "Imagine that you live in a peaceful, quiet neighborhood and that the house next door to you has just been sold. But curiously, you hear rumors that the house has not been purchased by a family or individual, but by a church of all things. Being a conscientious yet perp lexed neighbor, you walk next door to meet your new neighbors and inquire into their intentions. The church’s pastor greets you in the front yard and excitedly explains, “Yes, this is just the perfect site. ..." Read more of this article at http://works.bepress.com/daniel_lennington/1/and then realize similar and worse situations have been happening in Janesville since 2000.

RLUIPAs objective was very well intentioned. Because of it's very vague language, the consequences have been very unintentional and disturbing. RLUIPA has been affecting neighborhoods in Janesville since the day it was signed. Throughout the nation there are numerous law suits on their way to the Supreme Court where it will eventually be reviewed. While these cases make their ways through the courts, the devastation being caused across the US continues unabated.
Ultimately what the people or a community think is acceptable, and what is legal to other people and institutions, simply doesn't matter under RLUIPA. What any given church wants to do on it's land, it will be able to do because of RLUIPA protections (http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:vw-PYghvrEQJ:www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/legislation/issues/vol6num2/Geller.pdf+religious+land+use+and+institutionalized+persons+act&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=29&gl=us) Today churches literally hold cities, neighborhoods, and individual families hostage to their whims.
Whenever any single institution has that much power, the people need to be informed and beware.

4 comments:

rirhodes said...

Instead of declaring RLUIPA unconstitutional the HIGHER courts have generally interpreted the law in a much more restricted manner than is described here.

If you zoning law does not discriminate against religion, does not prevent a religious practice, and does not require a religious group to do something that is against its religious practice it will probably be upheld.

Robert I. Rhodes, Chairman, Preserve Ramapo, www.PreserveRamapo.org

Judith said...

Thank you, rirhodes for the input. However, the fact remains the burden of proving innocence remains with local governments - guilty until proven innocent. And it still remains, localities often have their hands tied with finances and time constraints unable to make such expenditures even into lower level courts so they can be coerced with the simple threat of a suit under RLUIPA. Also thanks for the link to your website and more information including this interesting essay on RLUIPA: http://www.preserveramapo.org/Community%20View/rluipa_law_was_passed_anonymousl.htm

RichE95 said...

Reading between the lines, it appears the writer of this blog has an unwarranted resentment of religion. Perhaps her problem is with churches she has philosophical differences with. There is no great danger here. The greater danger would be for government interference with churches. Most congregations are small and do not have the resources to fight government meddling.

Judith said...

Absolutely agreed...most churches "do not have the resources to fight government meddling". However, in a RLUIPA suit, it is the government who has to pay for the fees of the church should the city be found discriminating. Since it's next to impossible to prove a negative and cities are considered guilty until proven innocent, cities know the threat of RLUIPA is enough to have them "settle" giving churches whatever they want. Threats (stated or indirect) don't cost anything. On the other hand, please don't presume to judge anyones level of faith (or lack there of) for it simply demeans both you and those you accuse with unverified assumptions. The crux of all state/church issues is that BOTH entities are more rightly served and stronger when they function separately. Neutrality removes the authority of government from religious practice and vice versa. RLUIPA is not removing the state from churches but, instead, provides favoritism under federal law.