Methodist Church v Hearing Examiner :: 129 Wn2d 238
Category: Land Use and Property Rights
A declaratory judgment was sought by the church to determine if the designation of the church building to be a landmark by the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board does in fact infringe upon religious liberty.
The area that the church was located had become less urban and more commercial. The church, faced with a diminishing membership base, needed to reduce the size of the sanctuary or demolish the building altogether and sell the property to a commercial bidder. The church would be allowed to do neither under the city’s ordinance. The city argued that the church had not yet been designated, however, it had been nominated and as such, the same ordinance applied.
The Court of Appeals held “that mere landmark designation of a church does not infringe on religious freedom.” [at 241]. The Court also held that the church could demolish only if they replaced the building with another religious facility. [at 243]. The Supreme Court countered, “That analysis marks a departure from recent precedent applying a strict scrutiny analysis and holding landmark designation unconstitutional once the complaining party shows a coercive effect on free exercise.” [at 241]. In other dictum the Court declared that the regulations did not have to be religious in nature to affect the religious work of the church and any requirement that a religious organization seek secular approval for matters that potentially affect their work is unconstitutional. [at 246 ff]. The City could show no compelling interest in landmark preservation. [at 250].
The dissent ignores the declaratory nature of the case and argues that the Court has “focused on a premature constitutional issue” because “landmark designation has not come to pass in the present case.” [at 253, 255]. The dissenters argue that “[n]o governmental body has exerted any controls over the church or its operation.” [at 253]. Furthermore, they have the audacity to claim that the church “has eschewed the very process designed to protect its interests . . .” because they have gone around the administrative process and directly to the courts. [at 254]. Do these people really believe that state control of the church’s developmental abilities is a “protection” for the church?
The dissenters wrap up their diatribe by haranguing the majority for expanding the principles of religious freedom and arguing that freeing the church from governmental control will somehow isolate the church from the community. [at 257]. The socialists will always believe that private property and private beliefs are public assets.
If the community really believed that the church was vital to their existence and / or identity, where were they on Sunday morning?
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Alexander, Gerry | |
| pass | Durham, Barbara | |
| pass | Guy, Richard | |
| pass | Hartung Jr, George | |
| pass | Johnson, Charles | |
| pass | McFarland, Steven | |
| pass | Misterek, Leon | |
| pass | Pasette, Sally Phillips | |
| pass | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Baker, William | |
| fail | Dolliver, James | |
| fail | Grosse, C Kenneth | |
| fail | Madsen, Barbara | |
| fail | Pekelis, Roselle | |
| fail | Sidren, Mark | |
| fail | Talmadge, Phil | |
| fail | Tobin, Robert | |
| fail | Webster, Walter |