In a message dated 3/1/2004 9:45:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does a generally applicable, neutral law "protect those that need the most protection in this society (as opposed to one that provides exemptions)"? I strongly take exception to the idea that some
I have yet to see a community where a religious organization cannot find a proper site at all. What usually happens in my experience is that the religious organization gets a deal on a piece of property that is improperly zoned for the proposed use and then fights the land use laws to save money.
Religion is a special category. It is treated specially in the Constitution and in IHR instruments and in constitutions worldwide.
NIMBY ought not be allowed to reign for siting religious structures. There ought to be good space zoned for religious groups to meet. And for certain size groups,
Steve and I will have to disagree on numerous factual disagreements. Reducing the interests of land use law to the acronym NIMBY does not answer the objections I have raised. There is no jurisdiction in the country hat does not have "good space zoned for religious groups to meet." The question is
Re: RLUIPA, was RE: Potentially
Important California State Case
Steve and I will have to disagree on numerous
factual disagreements. Reducing the interests of land use law to the
acronym NIMBY does not answer the objections I have raised. There is no
jurisdiction in the country hat doe
