3A Public Hearing 2008 0219 Supplement

Home

Our Core Argument This case is about a deliberate and unreasonable suppression of religious freedom. There is a group of 1500 parishioners that wants room to do the things that religions do best: Cater to families, provide support and comfort in times of need, form a community of friends, provide a vision of a better life, and give honor to God. That First Amendment right of all Americans is being deliberately and unreasonably suppressed by the City of San Leandro. The City of San Leandro put this good faith group of citizens through an approval process that was slovenly and ignored basic good planning. What the Church wanted was a reasonable answer to their question about use of the Catalina Court. It was really a denial process, not an approval process, because the City's primary time and effort went into creating a colorable basis to discriminate against the church application at 14600 Catalina Court. Equal Protection At its core, this case is about equal protection. Congress understood the power of equal protection to do justice. Congress saw that churches are being subjected to invidious discrimination in many communities across this nation. The part of the RLUIPA statute that really applies Equal Protection standards to municipal religious discrimination reads: It is unlawful for a "government to impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution" 42 U.S. C. Section 2000cc(b)(1). Separate but equal treatment of religious assembly uses is prohibited by the plain words of that statute. That means if a City allows a commercial or entertainment assembly (like a theatrical production, a business training center, or a paint ball arcade) on Catalina Court, then that City must allow a religious assembly of the same magnitude on Catalina Court. If the land use characteristics (such as traffic, parking, design, public safety, noise, etc.) can be objectively measured and mitigated, the City has no authority to apply a different standard to a religious assembly within that building. If the commercial assembly use requires a conditional use permit at Catalina Court, then the City may require a conditional use permit for a religious assembly use at Catalina Court. But equal protection requires that conditions of approval be limited to the same conditions that would reasonably apply to a non -religious assembly of the same magnitude. San Leandro claims that it is acceptable for religious assembly to be given separate but equal treatment at the locations designated AU Overlay. But in San Leandro that means churches belong down there between them two railroad tracks. Separate but equal never winds up equal, or otherwise why would they need to be separate in the first place? Evaluation of Unequal Treatment