A recent suit in US District Court over whether an Arlington County affordable housing project violated the first amendment brings to light some questions over partnerships formed to develop real estate projects.
A local resident filed the suit, alleging that an affordable housing development above a church violated the separation of church and state. Bozzuto Development is building the Views at Clarendon, consisting of eight floors of primarily subsidized housing for low- and moderate-income tenants above a new church sanctuary and child-development center. The church, seeking to renovate its sanctuary, sold the air rights for $5.6 million to a nonprofit group that’s building the apartments. Some $48 million in county and state loans and tax credits is helping finance the project.
The first amendment challenge brought on by the resident, Peter Glassman, claimed that taxpayer money was being used to fund the church renovation and is “enriching a religious institution.” According to local reports, Glassman claimed the subsidy for each apartment was excessive, that the church received more than market value for its air rights, that the shared lobby, entrance and other brick-and-mortar elements would entangle the church and the subsidized housing,” and that entanglement was furthered by the amount of church members on the nonprofit board.
Glassman lost the suit due to a lack of proof, though he stated his intention to appeal the decision. The multifamily units are slated to open at the end of 2011.
Though in this case the first amendment challenge seems to be another tactic used by NIMBY-ists to block an affordable housing project—after all, local residents tried to block the project a few years ago on zoning grounds—it does bring to surface certain questions about public/private partnerships like this. How fine is the line between church and state when the private partner is a religious institution?
Where in the United States Constitution ‘demands’ separation
of church and state? I’ve been asking this question for many
years, and yet find Legal Complaints based on this issue…
Why do our courts give creditable stature to a”phrase in a
letter” written by one of our founding fathers?
Please advise. Thank you.
The purpose of the so-called “separation of church and state” is to avoid government favoritism of one religion over another, not to prevent a church from making an investment, and certainly not to secularize our society. “Separation of church and state!” has become a rallying cry for those who oppose organized religion and who ignore the fact that the founding fathers, albeit with diverse beliefs, were nearly all religious men.
JESUS CHRIST BLESS YOU ALL! I BAPTIZE YOU(ALL) IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER,SON AND HOLY SPIRIT! I AM HOSTAGE OF SCIF(CALIFORNIA STATE COMPENsatan INSURANCE FUND LABOR CODE sec#11784) SCIF REALLY ADD THE TRUE MEANING OF SEPARATION! THEY ASKED ME TO JOIN THEM AND WORSHIP THE devil! AS THEY KIBOSH THE FEEDING OF THE CHILDREN ALL OVER THE WORLD FROM THE BREAD BASKET OF THE WORLD ! THEY BRING TERRORISTS INTO USA POSING AS ILLEGAL MIGRANT WORKERS! A DOUBLE CROSS! PUN INTENDED!I WILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE USA IN 12 YEARS IF THE HOLY SPIRIT IS WILLING! send checks to, ESQ. DAVID OWEN CRAWFORD,AT LARGE, FEDERAL BUILDING,AIRPORT,G.D.HONOLULU,96820-9999, I REMAIN A PUBLIC MINISTER IN JESUS CHRIST
If the government had denied the loans for this project because it involved property acquired from a church, THAT would have been unconstitutional. If they had told the non-profit org building the housing that they had too many church members on their board, THAT would have been unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs in this case have a very backward view of what the 1st Amendment prevents. They don’t want this building on their block, and they’re grasping at their final straw to prevent it.
Real estate blogging encourages a culture and principle of RESPECTFUL debate. Great stuff as usual…. Thanks for this.