3A Public Hearing 2008 0219 Supplement

Home

As a basis for its decision, the City of San Leandro and its officials propose five reasons: 1. Tax base, 2. Economic development, 3. Traffic impact 4. Special Study area, and 5. Hazardous materials dangers. None of those criteria pass the compelling governmental interest test: 1. Tax base. While slyly excluded from the formal findings, Councilmember Prolo, and numerous speakers throughout the denial process suggested that church would not contribute to the tax base. (I.e.no fiscal benefit). The property tax exemption is a key factor in the animus the City of San Leandro and many governments have toward churches. In some locations, including San Leandro, the property tax exemption has made churches what is known as a LULU — a Locally Unpopular Land Use. An indicator of the substantial impact of the fiscal reasons is that churches are far more unpopular with government officials than with the populace at large or the neighbors. More sophisticated governments understand the off -setting benefits churches provide to their community, which is why most well planned cities in the Bay Area allow churches in their light industrial zones (e.g, Pleasanton, Livermore, Dublin, Fremont, Concord, etc.). More sophisticated governments understand that there are not enough religious people to have any significant effect on the tax base. Courts have ruled that the adverse impact on the tax base is not a legitimate reason to deny a proposed religious assembly Guru Nanak Sikh Society v. County of Sutter 456 F.3d 978 at 987 (9t' Cir. 2006). But, if the rational basis test is used, the city just finds some other argument (like economic development) to justify their discrimination against churches, even when the major reason is tax base. The actual fiscal impact of the property tax exemption for the Catalina Court site on the City of San Leandro is about $6,500 per year (San Leandro gets about 12% of property taxes). That is not a compelling reason to suppress religious assembly. More frighteningly, the fiscal strategy of suppressing religious assembly only works if systematic discrimination succeeds in forcing churches into lower value locations or out of the community. Maybe that is why the City of San Leandro wants churches down there between them two railroad tracks next to the heavy industry. That rationale does not even pass the separate but equal test. 2. Economic Development. The City wants to promote private, high tech uses like software companies at this general area within the City (i.e. economic development.) But if a use is such that its presence does not significantly inhibit the ability of a high tech (or other politically favored use) to be conducted in the building next door, then the fact that that this property owner happens to use the facility for religious assembly is not a compelling reason to prohibit churches. In fact, virtually all of the adjacent property owners signed letters urging the City to approve the church application. Moreover, the building would be equally lost to high tech uses if it were used for commercial entertainment or real estate offices. We do worry about the free speech rights of union halls which along with churches have been relegated to the spot down between them two railroad tracks, along with the other disfavored uses.