Posted on 05/10/2025 6:52:16 PM PDT by Morgana
The mayor of Toms River, New Jersey, says he has a plan to revitalize the town’s riverfront and to create a new park for local families who live nearby. He’s found the perfect spot — three underused marinas and a large parcel of land with a great parking lot.
There’s just one problem. A local Episcopal church sits on the 11-acre property and has no interest in selling. Instead, church leaders want to build a shelter for the homeless on the property to expand their ministry in the community.
Mayor Daniel Rodrick, a Republican, says his plan will also be a benefit to the community..
“There’s a real need for the local residents up in those neighborhoods to be able to walk somewhere and put their kids on a swing,” said Rodrick in a recent phone interview. “I just think it’s a very positive thing. And I believe Christ would agree.”
Meanwhile, church leaders have been working for months to secure approval for a 17-bed homeless shelter on its property—and they say the city’s proposal, which came as a surprise, is an attempt to prevent it from being built.
The church’s shelter has been a matter of public debate since it announced plans last fall to ask for zoning approval. A nonprofit called the Affordable Housing Alliance has operated an outreach program on the church’s property since 2023 and hopes to work with the church to build a 17-bed shelter.
Neighbors objected to the shelter and in April, Rodrick made some disparaging comments about the homeless, accusing Ocean County officials of “dropping dozens of mentally ill and drug addicts downtown even after they said they would stop,” according to Patch.
He also criticized Jon Bon Jovi’s JBJ Soul Kitchen, a pop-up that offers meals at a suggested price of $12. The goal of JBJ Soul Kitchen is to address food insecurity, but Rodrick called it a “day shelter and soup kitchen” that attracts homeless to the city.
The town’s zoning board is expected to vote May 22 on the zoning change.
In the meantime, on April 30, the town council proposed an ordinance and held its first vote to buy or seize the church’s property, along with five other properties, to create two new town parks.
The church’s rector, Lisa Hoffman, told the Episcopal News Service, the city didn’t send the church a notice of the vote; she learned about it from a parishioner on the night before the vote.
“It’s just really shocking and surprising and very disappointing,” Hoffman said. “There’s a lot of anger and frustration going on,” adding that she doesn’t see parks as a “legitimate reason to seize the property.”
Approximately 150 members of the community, including Christ Church parishioners and members and clergy from other local churches, attended the April 30 town council meeting.
A motion to table the ordinance failed, then the ordinance passed first reading by a vote of 4 to 3 with one abstention, Hoffman wrote. The final vote is scheduled for May 28.
The dispute appears headed for a long court battle.
“Rest assured; our church campus is not for sale,” Hoffman told church members in a letter posted on the church website. Hoffman, who was out of town, was not available for an interview.
“Should this ordinance pass on the second reading, the church and the diocese are prepared for a long court fight to protect our congregation and property from this egregious land grab,” the letter said.
Dan Dalton, an attorney with expertise in religious land use under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), told MinistryWatch that case law is divided about the applicability of RLUIPA in eminent domain cases.
The Ninth Circuit in California held that RLUIPA applies to eminent domain cases, but the Seventh Circuit in Illinois ruled that it does not apply to eminent domain cases, Dalton said.
“Courts consider a city’s motives when evaluating an eminent domain / RLUIPA case. In the Toms River matter, it seems the motive is to remove the homeless from the city, rather than trying to find a way to provide for the homeless. They are picking pickleball over housing. The city decision appears to be pretextual, and I do not believe a court would uphold an eminent domain action if challenged by the local church, asserting RLUIPA as a defense,” he told MinistryWatch.
In an interview, Rodrick declined to speak about the zoning issue but denied that he was trying to attack Christ Church’s ministry. Instead, he said, he was looking out for the best interest of community members.
“It’s not about taking anybody’s rights away,” he said.
Rodrick said Christ Church is a relatively small congregation with an 11-acre property — and a large parking area — that remains empty most of the week. He hopes that the city would rather buy the property than take it by eminent domain, though he does believe using eminent domain would be legal.
Initial drawings for the proposed park included a soccer field and pickleball courts, but Rodrick said nothing is set in stone. He did say that any park would include a large playground. He hopes the dispute with the church can be resolved soon, saying that the congregation could use the funds from any sale to relocate or fund other ministries.
“I would rather come to an amicable settlement,” he said.
Episcopal Church leaders seem uninterested in making a deal with the mayor.
In her letter, Hoffman acknowledged that the congregation likely feels angry, uncertain, and wants to take some kind of action. She asked them to “hold steady” until after the May 22 and May 28 meetings.
“[F]or now, the Bishop and I have agreed to hold off on items such as protests until we have had some time to work through these initial days. This could be a long fight and there will be plenty of time for community organizing and acts of protests,” Hoffman told the congregation in her letter.
Bob Smietana also contributed to this report.
This story has been updated.
Exactly.
Thieving government.
Yeah, I side with the church
This would not even be before city council if it was not for the USSC decision in Kelo.
I can understand the locols not wanting a homeless shelter in the neighborhood.
The homeless shelters in the two nearest towns are an endless source of assaults, murders and arson.
I would definitely oppose a homeless shelter.
I also definitely oppose a government that says “We know better how to utilize your property.”
I suppose they could stop the shelter through the permit/zoning process.
““It’s not about taking anybody’s rights away,” he said.”
Bull. What’s he getting?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.