controversial federal law enacted last year which immunizes churches from a wide range of local and state statutes pertaining to land use is increasingly being used by religious organizations.

   Last week in Colorado Springs, Colorado, three religion-affiliated groups intervened in a counter claim against neighborhood members who had sued to block construction of what they say is a "homeless mall" in the middle of their residential neighborhood. The proposed Montgomery Community Center won narrow approval from the City Council last November following a marathon meeting. According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Center would be operated by the American Red Cross using $5 million in contributions from the El Pomar Foundation, a secular charity and endowment group.

   Five local residents opposed the project saying that it violated local zoning laws. They argued that the facility would end up as a "dumping ground" for vagrants, homeless and poor people unwanted in other parts of the city, and cited the effects of increased pedestrian and automobile traffic in their neighborhood.

   What began as a contentious fight over zoning, though, now has been blown into a squabble involving three religious groups -- Catholic Charities of Colorado Springs, Ecumenical Social Ministries and "SET," an outreach providing health care for uninsured and underinsured persons. The agencies are identified as "prospective tenants" of the Montgomery Community Center, and have intervened in the legal action citing their freedom of religion and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

   RLUIPA was passed in late July-August of 2000 and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. It is a scaled-down version of legislation which was known as the Religious Liberty Protection Act (RLPA), and requires government to use a "compelling interest/least restrictive means" test when dealing with faith-based groups on matters involving land use. Churches and other religious groups cited the need for the statute, insisting that their First Amendment freedom was jeopardized by restrictive ordinances, environmental statutes and other regulations such as zoning laws. Indeed, confrontations between municipalities and residents on one hand and religious groups seeking to expand or construct new facilities have become more frequent in recent years.

   Critics warned that like RLPA, RLUIPA was not about legitimate religious exercise, but rather a special entitlement that immunized faith-based groups from zoning regulations and other "neutral" rules that apply to private home owners, businesses and other organizations. Within minutes of the Act being signed into law, attorneys for a congregation in Michigan were in court seeking legal protection under RLUIPA, challenging a move by the city of Grand Haven to prevent their client from opening a storefront church. City officials said that under local zoning laws, religious meetings and houses of worship were not permitted uses for the neighborhood, which had been slated for re-development.

   Store front churches, though, are only a small part of the concerns over how RLUIPA may affect cities and neighborhoods. In Maryland and Massachusetts, residents have challenged laws which are similar to RLUIPA, and shelter religious groups from land use and other statutes. In the Massachusetts case, residents of the Belmont community were unsuccessful in stopping the construction of an enormous Mormon Temple in the midst of their neighborhood. A couple in Maryland recently failed in attempts to prevent the expansion of a religious school located across the street. In these and other cases, religious organizations simply by-pass the local regulations, citing "freedom of religion."

   Rescue missions, homeless shelters and related outreaches are often a flash point in neighborhoods, even if they are operated in a secular fashion. The squabble in Colorado Springs began when residents protested a secular program to be run by the American Red Cross. The intervention of religious groups citing the First Amendment has now aggravated the situation, and annoyed litigants. William Robinson, lead plaintiff in the neighbor's original suit told the Gazette, "It is outrageous that these nonprofits hide behind the claim of religious persecution to prevent the neighbors from exercising their right to legal redress."

   The executive director of Catholic Charities, Krzysztof Maszkowski, defended the move by the religious groups to become involved in the court case. "We're not doing this to be bad guys," he said. "We're doing this because it's right."

   Robinson takes issue, though, and points out that the neighbors were protesting the Community Center project long before the religion-based groups were involved. "The people of this neighborhood are trying to prevent El Pomar and the Red Cross from destroying this neighborhood by forcing the city to enforce its own zoning ordinances," he said.

   The Colorado case could well end up at the definitive legal test of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

[text only]