Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
|
Umm, wrong. Very much so.
We have zoning laws, for one. Do you honestly think someone would have, say, the Constitutional right to build a 50 story tower next door to an airport?
Here's a great line from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning
Quote:
|
Theoretically, the primary purpose of zoning is to segregate uses that are thought to be incompatible. In practice, zoning is used to prevent new development from interfering with existing residents or businesses and to preserve the "character" of a community.
|
Emphasis mine, of course.
The Supreme Court has ruled again and again in favor zoning laws, and only facial challenge has ever be brough. Zoning laws were upheld in that case as well.
There ARE special considerations given to land to be used for religious purposes, but quite frankly I find that unConstitutional and offensive, and should a challenge ever come, this would be one time I'd be happy to have a left-leaning Supreme Court (although I suspect that any SCOTUS would overturn that aspect of the RLUIPA if a major challenge were ever presented).
In any case, my point is simple: legally, this construction COULD be legally averted (it happens all the time), and to suggest otherwise is a mischaracterization of what SHOULD be the debate - that being whether or not issuing the permit was the right thing to do.
That in general is the problem I have with political hacks on both sides - they are always attempting to excuse their decision-making with this notion that they have no other choice. Sure, they had a choice and they made it.
Here, let's try another hypothetical: I want to start a new church. A church where nude women swing around on poles and offerings are taken in the form of dollar bills. I want to place that establishment in a location across from an elementary school that is commercially zoned.
Would you issue that permit?