Chabad what’s the fuss news

What once was a land-use issue dating back to the Masons’ original building permit has now escalated into concerns over continued outdoor activities at churches and preschools citywide, discrimination against a Jewish organization and a possible violation of Chabad‘s constitutional right to equal protection as defined by the federal Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

"We support faith-based religion and education," the Millers said in a joint statement to the Weekly. "However, with all of the events that Chabad wanted outside — 15 events of 120 people a year, discussion groups of up to 24 people and a playground, all directly on the other side of our fence — we did not know how to make it all work in this very small area.

"In response to Chabad‘s initial use permit application on Feb. 9, 2016, the city wrote a letter to Chabad a full year before escrow closed, which stated: ‘Staff is generally unsupportive of outdoor activities near the adjacent residential properties to the north of the subject site due to potential impacts of outdoor activities on adjacent residences.’

Although the Millers have met with Resnick to seek a compromise, they have yet to hear back from him with regard to their latest proposal. It seems likely, though, that he will not agree to some of their demands, including a continued ban on the Chabad using its backyard and its need to construct a sound wall up to eight or nine feet high to keep noise from side yard activities.

@Plesantonian, I think your analysis is the correct one. The restrictions that were granted should be thought of as a favor to the neighbors by the city when the original tenants were unruly enough to have let the city feel able to do such a favor. CUPs can have discriminatory effect that make them unconstitutional, even if the original reason for them is non discriminatory. And, as you said, should the city prevail, the land is valuable enough as townhouses that the present owner can sell at a profit to a developer and use the proceeds to move to a commercial area. It’s important that neighbors remember that housing trumps most other uses of land under the state’s guidance at the moment.

@My opinion, because the nature of the owner changed, it does have to do with religion. That being said, I think the previous owners were in reasonable standing to have sued themselves and chose not to. You’re going to have to understand that restrictions on land use are something that people can sue to have removed, and if they have a good enough reason, they can win, and if they lose, the city may have to still pay its own legal bill which can be quite expensive.

Since Pleasantonian is right that other legal uses have far more noisemaking ability and are not restricted, and others have pointed out that other similarly situated users have the same use and are not restricted, this stands a good chance of failing in court. You can never predict how a judge will rule, but any time both sides have a good point and a good reason to be in court, they should be settling instead and you may lose the restriction anyway.