Madison-Miller Park Community: An Important Land Use Code Issue, from "Concerned Blanchet Neighbors"

(This arrived unsolicited by E-mail. I know nothing of this group, and pass the information on for your consideration Here's the file they supplied with their E-mail and here is their website )

Notes: 1) Their Lawyers (Gendler and Mann) are probably a descendent of the Law Firm (Bricklin and Gendler) that Miller Park and friends used in the early 90's to prevent a 1000' TV tower being built on Madison (see our newsletters from 1991 and 1992). I note this as an example of a successful neighborhood appeal.

2) I was a member of the Joint Athletic Facilities Development program process (see lawyers' letter).

Andrew Taylor

***********************

To: Various Community Organizations, incl. you relatively near us to the south:

Wallingford Community Council c/o Lee Raaen
Sustainable Wallingford c/o Cathy Tuttle
Fremont Neighborhood Council c/o Stephanie Pure
FAWN - Fremont, Aurora Wallingford Neighbors c/o Linda Clifton
Greater Madison Valley Comm Council c/o Lindy Wishard
Miller Park Neighborhood Association c/o Andrew Taylor
Madison Park Community Council c/o Gene & Liz Brandzel

We are writing you to alert you to a recent Federal District Court decision against the City of Seattle’s Land Use Code that could have important impacts on zoning issues throughout many of our neighborhoods. I encourage you to write to City Council encouraging them to appeal the decision to the Federal 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals as described below.

This ruling originated from an appeal by our local neighborhood group, Concerned Blanchet Neighbors. We successfully contested that variance conditions were not met in a Blanchet application for a lighted football stadium in our area. Blanchet countered that public institutions are exempted from such variance and they should receive the same exemption, and the court agreed.

The issues:

The federal “Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000” (RLUIPA) prohibits city zoning from treating “a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.”

Well-established principles of land use law recognize that public facilities enjoy a special status that justifies their exemption from generally applicable zoning regulations. Traditionally, and under Seattle’s code, public facilities are exempted from many zoning regulations.

The district court’s decision ruled that since some public facilities are exempted from certain provisions of the code, similar exemptions should apply to religious institutions. This seems to greatly expand the reach of RLUIPA and potentially would allow religious institutions such as schools, universities, and other church-owned institutions to evade many zoning restrictions that apply to other private entities.

Within days of the decision, a national legal blog published an article that can be found at http://www.rluipa-defense.com/article.cfm?ID=340 . Its last paragraph is the most important, which reads in part:

“… It is common that government is exempt from local land use regulation. Might this decision be used in broader equal-terms claims? Could a religious organization argue that a city violates the equal-terms provision by allowing without any discretionary land use review, for example, a public school with an auditorium (a place of public assembly), but requiring private places of public assembly (religious use, VFW, concert venues) to go through the usual and uncertain zoning and land use approval process?”

See the attached summary from our attorney that outlines this particular case. Pay special attention to the section “Possible Ramifications” on its last page.

The city will soon decide whether or not to appeal the decision, perhaps within a week or two.

Please join with us within the next 7 days in urging the city to appeal this decision.

WHERE AND HOW TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE:

Refer to: U.S. District Court Decision in Seattle Archdiocese v. City of Seattle