And congress said, 'let there be religious land use': a RLUIPA primer.
Florida Bar Journal › Vol. 78 Nbr. 11, December 2004
Linked as:
Florida Bar Journal › Vol. 78 Nbr. 11, December 2004
Linked as:Summary
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
See the full content of this document
Extract
And congress said, 'let there be religious land use': a RLUIPA primer.
A Jewish congregation seeks to hold weekly religious services in a house located in a part of the city zoned for residential use only; must the city allow it to do so? A Christian congregation wishes to set up a church in storefront premises in a strip mall zoned for commercial use only; must the town allow it to do so? In each case, will the interests that have long led even well-motivated government actors to reject requests for variances and special use permits--such as reducing traffic, parking problems, noise, and congestion--suffice to rebut the cries of "religious freedom"?
As most of the city attorneys of this country are now undoubtedly aware, these questions have become much more difficult to answer in light of the enactment of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). (1) The core provision of the section of the act entitled "Protection of Land Use as Religious Exercise" (2) is this: No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (3) The statute goes on to provide: "No government shall 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." (4) Why did Congress provide such extraordinary protection to religious institutions in the context of local zoning decisions? According to Senators Hatch and Kennedy: Churches in general, an...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other documents:
12 X 12 Sale to Benefit Center for Grieving Children | Art About Power of Place, and the Place Is Right Here | lincoln foils rockland s comeback bid | Usm Advances but Drops Final | Sentencia nº 181 de Consiglio di Stato January 18 2010 | sentencia nº 2063 de consiglio di stato april 15 2008 | Sentencia nº 393 de Consiglio di Stato January 25 2008 | Sentencia nº 3678 de Consiglio di Stato, July 29, 2010