I love this kind of public policy, land use and community vision decision Longmont has on tap for Tuesday night. The City Council will make a decision (hopefully) on the Lifebridge Church's proposal for a huge mixed use development that either will or will not be annexed into the city. An interesting aspect of staff's documentation to Council is a reference to Lafayette's agreement with Exempla Hospital for a payment in lieu of tax-exempt development.
See, they did it over there! We should do it too! Any fallout from the Exempla agreement they should know about?
I wonder if they will punt and put it to the voters - a lame move that denies their rightful role as representatives. A political campaign vs a thoughtful, contextual decision on land use - what will a politician choose?
My gut leads me to believe that the hard-nosed business sensibilities of those pushing for this development are still just a layer of values on top of even deeper religious values, and that this entire development does not envision itself as a truly integrated new neighborhood of Longmont. There are vested interests at work to ultimately have a development that meets various deeply-held standards, and that's fine, I just don't think a secular government needs to be an enabler.
I was intrigued to read a letter to the city from Richard Yale (see p. 13 in the PDF) that challenges the city's right to only consider financial implications of the annexation (straw man?): "The amount of wealth for the city a project creates is not a Constitutional reason to vet an application.." He goes on to blame "secular progressive pressure" is convincing the Council to deny the application because it has been brought forward by a religious organization. Darn separation of church and state getting in the way again...
On balance, what does Longmont stand to gain compared to the financial responsibilities it takes on? That is for the Council to decide and justify their decision against. Plus this all happens in the beginning stages of a November Council election. The issue will be re-hashed for voters no matter how it goes. Fun fun fun. I'm fascinated watching the process unfold.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
If a city approves a church as a special use, it is an "enabler" of religious practice.
Is that right? Does government specifically enable anything when zoning accommodates an activity?
Are distasteful or objectionable things that we may legally do in our private lives, individually or collectively, on our private property, "enabled" by zoning? Is being allowed to use and enjoy private property in accordance with zoning equivalent to government encouraging and promoting those activities?
In my opinion, the answer is a resounding no. Whether one agrees that the Constitution dictates "secular" government or not, a government that is prohibited from even touching anything that has to do with religion is a government that logically must secularize everything it touches.
It is truly remarkable that this argument holds so much sway today, despite it being the opposite of the Founders' intent. I have no label for it, but the deepest notions of freedom that otherwise seem so well-spoken for in, for example, this blog cause me to wonder why we should disperse religious adherents throughout our communities. Dispersal is a land use strategy employed with the most noxious and unpopular of land uses.
The religious values of the Union promoters may be covert or overt - I have not followed closely enough to know or even have an opinion on that. I do know that the fundamental question we seem to be getting at is the same either way: Is there some reason that people with common religious values cannot live together or build a community together? While we can choose to be frightened of "Dominionism" or whatever label is attached to these groups, the truth is that people can and should have the right to lawfully assemble with like-minded (or diverse) neighbors. Take your pick, we have examples of all types of communities all around us.
Are we so afraid of religion that we need to purge the nation of Amish communities, of orthodox Jewish neighborhoods that are enclosed by an eruv, and any form of urban design that draws attention to a church? Personally, I abhor the notion that our spiritual existence must be subjugated in every public setting to a godless material state. Never mind the Free Exercise Clause, no one in their right mind should believe that this is what was meant when the Constitution's framers prohibited the government from establishing a religion.
But apparently there are plenty of "enablers" in our popular culture who promote that view.
Personally, I find the land use and budget issues with Union to be as interesting as all the theory about the place of religion in land development. The question of "Does Development Pay For Itself?" is parsed in detail by the opponents. They raise some good points, though I'm not sure any local government could meet the financial standard that is implicated.
To some degree I agree with Alex, but I hasten to point out that we're not dealing with pacifists here. The Union Annex is backed by the LifeBridge Church, which has supporters that include James Dobson among others.
Dominionists - people who believe it is not just their duty to run the world, but their DESTINY.
From either point of view, religious or secular, the Union Annex is a bad idea since it heralds the beginning of an age of cultural warfare that will do the City of Longmont absolutely NO good on any level.
To paraphrase a speech by Marilyn Musgrave: When you're in a cultural war like this you have to use equal or greater force if you're going to prevail.
The backers of LifeBridge's Union Annex are using the greatest cultural forces extant: money and LIES.
Union Annex isn't just a bad idea, it's the death knell for the City of Longmont - and that's exactly how the Dominionists are planning.
The Daily Camera today has an editorial about the topic.
For some reason, Exempla is compared to this. Exempla pays a licensee fee in lieu of property taxes because they are a non-profit.
Now non-profit doesn't mean they don't make money. It just that money is spent in ways that result in no profit at the end.
This type of proposed annexation has some interesting "unintended consequences". Should the businesses and residential properties pay their share of taxes?
If not, they have a competitive advantage and could offer lower prices to their members. Imagine a LifeBridge Visa card? Or special mortgage plan? How diversified is this "compound" really going to be?
Another is over time, do the residents become essentially a "politically action" group, a voting block. Imagine what would happen in our city if all of Indian Peaks (some 1390 units) voted as one. Talk about political influence. (Wow, that's a neat thought.)
So one can argue separation of church and state. The King of England was also the head of the Church of England. That led the Founding Fathers to debate the inherent conflict of whether they were revolting against the church as well.
In Boston, does anyone think the Catholic Church is separated from the city's politics?
P.S. Dan asks if there is any "fallout" from Exempla.
Well, the fire station committed to by the hospital five years ago isn't there.
Exempla played a major role in the annexation of the property north of theirs. Ironically they had to battle with some of the participating private prop owners who wanted in but didn't want to pay prop taxes until the land was developed.
Exempla is doing what other hospitals have done. Working to build a supporting infrastruture around it of medical office buildings, residential units, hotels/motels, etc. Just taking longer to do it. The huge majority of their employees still live out of the city.
I think we need to agree that what gives the Musgraves of the so-called “culture wars” such ability to exploit religion is not that the American public has been indoctrinated into some monolithic cult, but that most people want to cultivate some sort of spiritual existence, period. When you don’t have anyone else who speaks to that instinct - when the vast majority that occupies the middle in this country is indeed silent - it’s up to the extremes to come in and inform the debate. That is the basic observation underlying my opinion about the intersection of religion and politics.
From there, I always wonder what “armies” are fighting in this culture war. I note that “Dominionism” is a label coined to describe the conservative right-wing by someone on the other side of the battle lines. And then we have the “Social Progressives,” the label given to the left-wing by the right. I guess the conflict must be neatly packaged before the rest of us are capable of being recruited into the ranks of one army or another.
But most of us exist outside of this battle, in both secular and spiritual life.
The question about Union as a religious development may be best framed in terms of the fear that Longmont may be about to build a community full of James Dobsons. In fact, let’s just assume that Union will be a community full of Ted Haggards. Is this tantamount to allowing al-Qaida to build a “faith-based” community in our backyard? That would seem to be the argument.
But if you have a community full of Ted Haggards, what you get may be quite different from what you asked for. I would even go so far as to say that no matter who inhabits the community, real people have a lot more in common than they do differences, including plenty of foibles.
I’m glad you’ve posted again, Doogman. It is good that someone is asking questions about Union. I’m just not convinced that the religious angle can be that compelling to reasonable people who truly believe in the freedoms so central to our Constitution. From my perspective, I would be very interested in more argument about the benefits and burdens relative to Longmont’s municipal services. It’s a given that Union will be geographically isolated from the community. That can have budget consequences no matter who occupies the land. Even if the financial analysis I see the Union objectors producing has no precedent in municipal budgeting, maybe these are exactly the questions Longmont and other communities should be asking.
Post a Comment