Churches and the loss of Property Rights (vanity)

6/24/2005 | self

[kpp_kpp]

I am not the vanity posting type, nor am I usually an alarmist but this latest USSC ruling taking away our private property rights for increasted tax revenue... it is impossible to put into words the impact this is going to have on our country.

One area I'm interested in getting feedback on is that of Religious organizations and property tax. Obvouisly states can choose on their own to tax religious organizations if that is what they really wanted -- but that would probably not go over well as a state wide issue.

But now, with eminent domain expanded, local communities are free to take over non-revenue producing churches and transfer the to developers -- for the greater good of the community.

This may sound unfeasible to some in conservative-leaning areas (where it is "unthinkable"), but there are plenty of areas of the country where churches have a hard enough time getting and zoning property for their use.

It will start slowly, and at first it will just happen to religious organizations that aren't "mainstream" but the long term consequences of this decision are truly incomprehensible.

[kpp_kpp]

Any thoughts re tax exempt organizations?

This will be used as a bullying tactic by local governments to rid themselves of unwanted property owners... in some cases it may be abortion clinics, in others it will be churches, etc. This is so far reaching that you can't even get your mind around the consequences.

[LS]

I think everyone has totally mis-read this opinion.

They have totally missed that there is a 200-year tradition in America of favoring "developmental rights" over "pristine property rights," and even Justice Thomas, in my view, missed the significance of this by (I think) taking the wrong argument on the "Mill acts."

The lawyers for the homeowners should have based their case on the fact that private home ownership DOES do more for the "public good" than does a mall; that "developmental rights" were HARMED by putting up a mall, especially when it is likely to fail.

I don't see this applying to churches at all.

[Revelation 911]

But now, with eminent domain expanded, local communities are free to take over non-revenue producing churches and transfer the to developers -- for the greater good of the community.

as a pastor of a church on the outskirts of a growing village, it's a huge concern......as our parcel is perfectly situated on the prime corner, immediately on the outskirts.

Our prime asset just devalued significantly, as our ability to hold out for a good offer was just circumvented by the socialists on the SC

[AntiGuv]

From Stevens' majority opinion (in reference to Berman):

("It was not enough, [the experts] believed, to remove existing buildings that were insanitary or unsightly. It was important to redesign the whole area so as to eliminate the conditions that cause slums. . . . The entire area needed redesigning so that a balanced, integrated plan could be developed for the region, including not only new homes, but also schools, churches, parks, streets, and shopping centers. In this way it was hoped that the cycle of decay of the area could be controlled and the birth of future slums prevented").

From O'Connor's dissent:

Indeed, [the majority] could not so claim without adopting the absurd argument that any single-family home that might be razed to make way for an apartment building, or any church that might be replaced with a retail store, or any small business that might be more lucrative if it were instead part of a national franchise, is inherently harmful to society and thus within the government's power to condemn.

Yes, there is nothing in this ruling that cannot be applied to churches.

[AntiGuv]

That is, extrapolating from Berman to Kelo.

[kpp_kpp]

before yesterday a local community had no viable means of taking over the propery of an unwanted/non-revenue-producing religious organization that was not "condemnable"

today they do.

[LS]

You didn't follow the argument. It's all about "developmental rights" and has been for 200 years. So what you, I, conservatives, anyone has to do is to re-caste the legal arguments away from "pristine" property rights and into the "developmental" mode. I'm convinced it can be done. I'm also convinced you can't win the "pristine" argument, because it would unravel the basics of American land law, among other things ("squatter's rights," for example.

[krazyrep]

As far as taxing churches goes, I doubt it would get very far if attempted. Separation of church and state works both ways (although atheists and liberals try to pretend it doesn't). Actually I find it quite ironic that the most liberal Justices om the court went and did something Democrats usually accuse Republicans of doing: Trouncing on the little guy in favor of government and corporate America.

On a side note, I noticed that NBC mews last night did not mention the names of the justices in the majority opinion. No doubt they didn't want to make the citizens of America mad at the liberal activist justices behind the decree and thus give the Republicans in the Senate more firepower to defeat Democrat filibusters.

Even under the present ruling, it would still be impossible to get rid of a specific entity alone. The government would effectively have to condemn the entire area surrounding the target as well.

What the homeowners should do is plant some rare protected animal or plant life in the area. That will shut down the projevct in no time flat.

[LS]

Which is why, as I keep saying, it was the wrong argument.

[FreeInWV]

Our state will likely test this. Wheeling, WV has been a liberal stronghold since civil war times. It is also the location of a very large, non revenue producing Hare Krishna compound. They've always hated the Krishnas.

[PAR35]

Churches have special protected status. Read the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000" and the cases decided under it.

[SoCal Pubbie]

First of all, Erin Willman is a scary, scary person- a veritable junior Hillary. Second, I have read that churches were indeed seized in the famous case in Michigan where a neighborhood was razed to build a GM plant.

Now let's consider what might happen to churches in this brave new world. They might really suffer, if there were a coordinated effort to target them far and wide for eminent domain. Unlikely to happen, but what might be more likely is for governments to target certain kind of churches who espouse politically incorrect doctrines. Pastors of untouched churches might look at what it takes to stay alive and then you have the famous "chilling effect" where churches become afraid to speak out. A great way to control religious thought and actually get religion to support the statist activities.

Getting back to taxing church property for a moment, Ms. Willman provides up with a textbook example of the thinking that's lead to cities getting in financial trouble to begin with. Once taxation becomes too big of a burden for churches, they will simply abandon their sanctuaries altogether and rent facilities for their services- high school gyms, multipurpose rooms, the Moose Lodge, whatever. The church property is now vacant, and may or may not produce taxes for the city depending on what the community can support. The old law of unintended consequences.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Then you are mistaken. It is already being done. There is a case now where a growing church was seeking property on which to build a new church. Over the period of several years they acquired several pieces of adjoining real estate as they came up for sale or the owners were persuaded to sell. Before the church could start building, some greedy developer got the local government to condemn the property so that he could make a large amount of money and the local government would not lose the tax base of the property.

God's house will be bulldozed for Donald Trump's house because Donald Trump will pay more taxes to the government.

[blue-duncan]

"Our prime asset just devalued significantly, as our ability to hold out for a good offer was just circumvented by the socialists on the SC"

Hey Rev., Don't under estmate your value to your flock. The suprmes didn't touch that. What they may have done is potentially increase the material value of your building location which does decrease potential for ministry expansion at your site. The bigger concern is the potential loss of real property tax exemptions for churches. To do this though would entail the loss of exemptions for all non profits including hospitals, schools, colleges and various charities. They have too strong a lobby to let that happen. Of course they could tax based on a percentage of the time not used for exempt purposes i.e. down time, since most church buildings are used only on Sunday and for mid-week services.

[kpp_kpp]

>
> Even under the present ruling, it would still be impossible
> to get rid of a specific entity alone. The government would
> effectively have to condemn the entire area surrounding the
> target as well.
>

that is an important point. can you point me to the specifics on the ruling that exclude its usage on a single property?

[Tired of Taxes]

I was just going to start a thread about that!

I turned on the Rush show last night, and his substitute (don't know the guy's name!) and a caller were discussing how "atheists" might want church property taken now, as it doesn't produce tax revenue, to make room for developers.

There's an old historic church down the street from me, right where a four-lane highway has been proposed. I'm no longer Catholic, but I've been wondering what the township is going to do about that place, and I don't want to see a piece of history go.

But, I can tell you right now, as someone who is nonreligious, that I have wondered why property that is not producing any tax revenue is left alone while others are being seized for "redevelopment". That's a valid point.

In my own town, the Boy Scouts own a large parcel of open land. It's my understanding that the BSA is tax-exempt (someone correct me if I'm wrong - maybe they are being taxed?) Yet, there is another small property owner being forced out using eminent domain to make way for a shopping center, while the BSA property is big enough for a mall.

It depends on your community. If a tax-exempt property is powerful enough in your community, it will remain untouched while others are forced out. Eminent domain hurts the "little guy", whomever that may be.

[restornu]

I am fially starting to understand many of these Reality TV programs.......if you noticed most of them have a Unisex set up for residents....

I think TV is the latest avenue for the THINK TANKS to condidtion GenXer and other current genreration to this NEW WORLD ORDER type of living in the future and to undermind FAMILY FIRST!

How does this related to your THREAD TOPIC it is CONTINUING the same agenda AT WORK!

The only way they can get their GLOBAL WORLD is to SUBLIMINAL program the mind to get use to this way of life and Nullify Good and Humanize the Contrary View!

More than ever now people must discern what they will loose if they are not careful of what is presented before them!

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for PUBLIC use, without just compensation.

There Is Nothing In OUR "BILL OF RIGHTS" that memention PRIVATE USE!

[kpp_kpp]

i agree it is being done today.

this court case gives them solid legal ground to stand on so churches won't even be able to fight it in the future.

[muawiyah]

The USSC ruling on "takings" will have an impact only in states that allow local governments to steal. Where that is not allowed, it will have no impact.

If your state allows local government to steal you should move away.

[Puddleglum]

This is a scary ruling that will lead to many abuses by local governments who buy into any snake-oil pitch from businessmen about raising tax revenues. ('Monorail, monorail...')

Plus, Boss Hogg finally has the legal basis he needs to annex the Dukes' farm.