UPDATE: Google Docs is having some bugs, if a document is unable to view then try hitting the refresh/reload button on your browser.
Welcome to a new blog covering, at first, the No Limits Christian Ministries, Incorporated lawsuit against the City of Mountain Home, me, and three or more other city officials. I decided to place this information online for anyone to read and to be able to now offer my opinion on the case and what it means.
In order to have an intelligent discussion about this case and its merits, it is necessary to first read and understand all of the documents regarding the case. I'll put all of them up that I can, and that are relevant. None of them are secret or protected, although some were confidential during the negotiation process. Later, and as I have the time, I'll add my own commentary and opinion to the factual circumstances of this case.
Due to the nature of the Mountain Home News "Banter Box" and news story comment sections to devolve into illogical, irrelevant, and nonsensical diatribes, which accomplish nothing, I'll respond only here, and only if on topic. Comments are welcome, but will be screened, by me, before being posted. Irrelevant, irrational, personal, or otherwise distracting from the discussion won't be posted.
First- you've gotta know what the zoning ordinance (click on title 9: Land Use and Development) and land use chart say, and be able to understand them.
Second, you've got to understand what a "conditional use permit" is, and as importantly, what it is not.
Third, get introduced to a whole new body of untested (at the Supreme Court level, anyway) federal law in the bullshit "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act" which is really the center of this fiasco. (and will be for many more expensive fiascos to come!)
No Limits Christian Ministries, Incorporated, Articles of Incorporation.
No Limits Christ-Based Counseling Ministries, Incorporated, Articles of Incorporation
A very clear Letter from City Planner Detailing what specific things needed to be done to approve CUP. (Conditional Use Permit) Feb 15th, 2011
Initial Complaint (lawsuit) filed May 31 in Federal Court.
City's Agreed Consent Order Acknowledging that there ought to have been a zone permitting churches as a right of use.
Exhibits to Lawsuit:
A- Declaration of NoLimits, Inc's Pastor Clark Williams.
B- Land use chart at time of application (link above)
C- Building Inspection Report of Nov 22, 2010.
D- Certificate of Occupancy for Counseling Use
E- City Zoning Map
F- CUP ordinance- (link above)
G- No Limits, Inc.'s CUP Application
H- Minutes of Feb 14th City Council Meeting
I- Letter from City Planner (link above)
J- Letter from No Limits, Inc. asking neighboring businesses for parking
K-Letter from Stardust Plaza permitting parking (Note it states it is "revocable at once")
L- Public Hearing Procedure
M-City Crosswalk Letter
N-Alcohol Establishment Proximity Waiver Letter
O- Minutes of May 4th City Council Meeting (the request for a "Temporary Conditional Use Permit")
This ought to be enough reading for now. We've only Just Begun.
I look forward to finally getting a look behind the curtain. For a so called church to sue the very community they claim to want to save just shows the depths of their greed. This behavior is so typical of church behavior. Preach one thing and do another.
ReplyDeleteSchroeder. Ha!. Delete this personal comment, you refugee from the Ministry of Silly Walks, and I shall taunt you for a second time.
ReplyDeleteI am also looking forward to hear more about this organization and how they will be able to justify its raiding of community funds for the purpose, oh yes what is the true purpose???? $61K (HA!) add $20K for additional legal fees incurred by the citizens of Mountain Home to defend themselves from the WOLVES of CHICAGO!! By the way $81K could equal three police officers salaries a year or street repairs!!!! Oh yes I want to hear more!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteGeoff,
ReplyDeleteFirst off – great job on helping to set the record straight. Secondly, I read the complaint when it was first made public and couldn’t believe that any court would agree that it was valid. Reading it again hasn’t changed my mind. Reading through the documentation you’ve posted makes surer that it’s groundless. To me the mere mention of RLUIPA was supposed to be enough to make the city buckle.
Most of the points in the claim seem ridiculous; paragraph 8 especially. No one forced them into that temporary location, and if their members didn’t want to worship where others did, or have the capacity to care for their own children during a two hour service – why is that the city’s fault? Did they survey the community to get the data to back up paragraphs 48-52, who did the survey, where are the results? Again to me, this is entire complaint is baseless.
The parking/Crosswalk situation falls to the “church/counseling business”. If they don’t have safe, adequate parking or access from the parking to their facility, acquiring it needs to be built into their business plan. Pretty simple. The sewage situation had to be obviously underrated for their planned operation. Why didn’t they address that and plan funding accordingly? That’s what any business would do.
Alcohol letter: what is a “present of future commercial activities relating to the sale or consumption of alcohol”? Are there local businesses planning to give away alcohol as a present in the near future, or did the three people who signed the document not proof it before having it notarized? Just wondering what level of professionalism we are dealing with here. It’s one thing to comment on a blog or online forum and have typos or misspellings…but not in a professional document that is known to be destined for the public domain.
I don’t understand why any church would have to incorporate. Aren’t religious organizations covered legally because they are religious organizations, without requiring incorporation? Then they incorporate two businesses and not the “church”, it’s not consistent. I realize there are some “churches” incorporate, I just don’t know why.
Licensing and certifications, in my opinion, should be legally recognized and publically registered for any field (religious or not) if they would require licensing or certification had they not been a religious organization (self-proclaimed or not). Counseling, general construction, vending hotdogs, everything that is in a sphere of operation that would normally require certification and/or licensure should not be exempt because they affiliate themselves with a religion. I know there are plenty of actual licensed and certified counselors that are faith based – some even take Tricare!
If I’m looking to break into a business (and make no mistake, that’s all this is), I would really have had my bases covered to be become a presence in that given field. That doesn’t appear to have happened in this case.
Anyway, that’s a couple of things off the top of my head on this subject. Good blog you have going here. Can’t wait to get to the rest of the story.
Vic