So Longmont's City Council has decided they need more time before they approve the massive LifeBridge Church's annexation. Should a church be the main player behind a huge development including housing and retail? More pointedly, should they be tax-exempt in their activities? Isn't their asking the question a slap to the community? This isn't a blurred line, its a blatant distinction that this is a capitalist venture and should be treated and regulated as such. That the church is playing games with their definition and status re: taxes, indeed their true identity, is plain awful. Be a church, or be a developer. Don't be both.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I think you need to ask whether $610 million of taxable commercial and residential development and $200 million of exempt religious and civic use is the wrong accounting.
If not, maybe the economy is at work and we can just settle on it.
Knowing that the tax exempt status isn’t being abused, the objection I keep hearing is really about religion and the perception of some nefarious intent. It doesn't matter to these objectors that assurances have been given, that no untoward tax benefit is being granted, whether the deal is square or not.
I've posted before about RLUIPA, so I'll just say that religion is often a land use issue, and it is exploited by both proponents and opponents of development. Is what we're really asking this: Should a very large development be annexed into a city when its design or intention is to promote a particular religion? That's the land use issue, forget about tax status.
Where I stand, looking at it from miles outside Longmont, I’m not sure the religious aspect bothers me. We have co-housing, covenant communities, and some strong neighborhood identities. Here in Lafayette. Should these be disallowed? How does one discriminate against religious expression if its physical manifestations are identical to land use allowed by code?
The Catholic Church, through it's various investments, has funded much larger developments.
Difference here is LifeBridge is developing land that will partially be used for church activities.
I agree with Alex, as long as the accounting is right, so what? And, that's what the Mayor and a couple of councilors said as well.
What does it matter that the developer is a church? The tax laws will take over, and there will be much scrutiny.
I wonder if "fear of religion" drives those who oppose this. One of the principles our country was founded on was "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion". In other words, you're free to choose your beliefs, and you're not required to practice those beliefs in hiding.
Since we allow churches to exist, right out in the open, why can't they make investments in things other than their own building? Good investing make those entities stronger, and able to provide better services to the local community.
Since the mayor is term limited, and 4 city council members are term limited, you'll see a lot of payola coming through the pipe. This will be approved as a gift just before they leave office. The deeper question is the HOA run by a church. They'll have their own government, run under the guise of the HOA.
An HOA run by a Church? Never even considered that - maybe it will be like the community in Florida built from scratch by the Domino's Pizza billionaire that will not allow any contrceptives to be sold within the municipality. Xmas trees allowed, but no Kwanzaa displays or you're out...
I'm looking at this from the vantage of knowing almost no specifics about the "Union" proposal (if I'm remebering the name correctly) and knowing even less about the personalities in Longmont politics.
Is it possible that the annexation is bad policy or bad design? Based on what I know, I just can't say, so, yes. Is it possible members of the Longmont council are influenced by political patronage? Again, I know little enough that I can't say one way or the other, though my conventional understanding of lame ducks is that they will be less influenced by patronage since they are not subject to re-election.
But the offense taken at the involvement of a religious institution in the proposal, and repeated here on this blog, requires no such knowledge. And that just ends up making me wonder whether there is so little else to object to in the proposal that the only thing left to object to is religion. I thought a long time ago here on the blog there was an item about Union and the land use issues surrounding the annexation: traffic impacts, provision of services, tax base, etc. Whatever happened to arguing about land use on the basis of land use?
So it probably goes without saying that I don't find the HOA issue any deeper than the design issues. Truly, if you want to ask a deep question, is it possible that subtle aspects of community life will end up reinforcing adherence to one particular faith? Is that something that should not ever occur in our communities? What is it that is so fearful about this prospect?
In the end, people have the freedom to choose where they will live. I do not live in a covenant community, and that suits me. Am I offend that others do live under the rule of covenants? Not in the least.
Having lived with covenants in an HOA for twelve years now and going nose to nose with the biggest residential developer in Lafayette it is clear that covenants are written to benefit the developer and also the city. The property owner comes last. And often the deals that are made in the PUD or OPD supercede any reasonable concern for the property owners.
I agree with Alex that the details haven't been made known yet. And as for the concept of religious organizations being in the money making business, no surprise there.
(As an aside, Business Week once did a study of the top colleges with major endowments. It argued that the schools existed as non profits to manage their hgue endowments and education was a sideline--funny.)
Now to assume a religious organization would resist the temptation to instill some sort of influence on its development is quite a stretch for me. There are ways for city to still collect money from non-profits. It was done here in Lafayette for Exempla Hospital.
But in that agreement, there is supposed to be a 2nd fire station on their campus. Five years have past since the agreement was made.
The accounting may very well NOT have been right - City employees have been quoted as having issues with the estimates. Some of the assumptions are just obviously wrong - and of large magnitude.
The fact that the 4C folks are threatening to pull out if a tax-related portion of the deal ISN'T nixed is quite revealing I think.
Follow the money. Also the water. Any bets on 'ownership' of Union Reservoir water lawsuits if the annex DOES go through. Would be a typical kiss/slap relationship found in most power structures.
If you let the Dominionists in, the battle will NOT end until they have control. Very. Scary. Folks.
I like this topic, but I'm having a hard time following you, Doogman.
It's pretty hard hitting to say that the accounting is wrong. That could and should be a big deal.
But is it off? What's the real accounting look like? I don't have enough information to follow the money.
Dare I even ask about the Dominionists?
New term to me as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
I may change my opinion on whether religious groups should be allowed to invest and maintain their tax exempt status.
The city will approve of the project. With the mayor and at least three council members "term limited", they and their cronies are going to spend, spend, and do favors for all their pals. This means Lifebridge is a go. The community will gain national attention, and it won't increase Longmont's status one iota. This is going to be a Flint, Michigan. Who knows, maybe it will spawn another documentary film maker.
Post a Comment