No surprise but unfortunate: Sufism Reoriented project approved

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Wednesday approved Sufism Reoriented's plans to build a large, white multi-domed sanctuary in the Saranap neighborhood of unincorporated Walnut Creek, reports the Contra Costa Times. 

Four of the five supervisors cast yes votes for the worship center, to be built on 3.12 acres off Boulevard Way.. Supervisor Gayle Uilkema, whose district is near the proposed sanctuary, listened to the meeting by phone Wednesday but did not vote.

Elisabeth Nardi will be updating her story later, and Walnut Creek Patch Editor Lance Howland tweeted that the supevisors had added a list of conditions for the 66,000-square-foot project. 

The approval comes following an all-day special public hearing last Tuesday at the Lesher Center for the Arts and several hours of testimony Wednesday. 





 

Sufism Reoriented vows federal fight over disputed sanctuary plans

At Tuesday’s special Contra Costa County supervisors meeting,  more than 100 people spoke out on many things for and against a religious group’s plans to build a big white 66,000-square-foot center in the unincorporated Saranap neighborhood of Walnut Creek.

And then  someone at the hearing at Walnut Creek's downtown Lesher Center for the Arts invoked the dreaded RLUIPA. The meaning behind this gag-inducing set of initials has the potential to take this dispute to a new and very litigious  level.

(Check out other big white monuments -- to power and ego? -- that grace communities near and far: The Mormon Temple in Oakland, of which the sanctuary would be two-thirds the size; the 58,000-square-foot building at 1500 Newell Avenue; the 55,000-square-foot White House; the 57,000-square-foot "manor" of late Charlie's Angels and Dynasty producer Aaron Spelling.)

The RLUIPA threat has always surrounded this issue, hovering in the background. But now we know how far Sufism Reoriented is prepared to go to defend its multi-domed complex, much of which will be built underground. In a statement to the supervisors, Sandy Skaggs, an attorney for Sufism Reoriented said,  “We are very prepared to defend this in court,” according to the Contra Costa Times.

The mechanism for this court fight would be RLUIPA, which stands for the 2000 federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. This law bars government entities from imposing land use regulations that create a "substantial burden" on a group's right to religious assembly. 

But constitutional scholar Marci Hamilton describes it as a law that can be burdensome to neighbors who oppose a church group’s expansion plans. Hamilton wrote a book God Versus the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law in which she devotes a chapter to church-state disputes in land-use issues. 

Before RLUIPA, religious landowners in virtually every jurisdiction in the United States “were just landowners,” writes Hamilton in her book. She is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin Cardozo School of Law.

Once upon a time, these landowners had to abide by zoning restrictions and take into account the views of homeowners regarding the impact of their proposal, she says. “They were property owners with equal rights under the land use law with all other property owners, and they had to be a good neighbor.”

RLUIPA changed all that, shifting the balance of power in residential neighborhoods to religious landowners, at the expense of the residential quality of the neighborhood, she says.

President Bill Clinton signed RLUIPA into law. Hamilton says Clinton never met a religious cause he would not support, and Congress made no effort to determine independently whether this “special interest legislation” was good for the people, Hamilton writes.

Congressional supporters of RLUIPA just went along with it, because religious leaders wanted it, Hamilton says. Religious organizations, with their growing political clout, lobbied for the law. The U.S. Supreme Court had invalidated as unconstitutional an earlier federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which basically gave religious entities a loophole for skirting all local, state and federal laws, including land-use laws.

Now with RLUIPA, residential landowners who face ambitious religious building plans don’t have the same right to equal protection, Hamilton contends. RLUIPA essentially creates two classes of citizens. “The first class is s ‘religious’ and the second class envelops everyone else. It is fundamentally unfair, as any homeowner who has been in this circumstance will tell you.’

Unfortunately, city and county entities are inclined to give in to religious organizations’ demands because, in these budget-challenged times, they can’t afford costly and lengthy court fights. Neighbors opposing a church’s plans usually don’t have the resources for a legal fight, either.

As Halfway to Concord blogger Wendy Lack pointed out, Sufism Reoriented had itself changed to an IRS-approved religious organization in 2003 after operating a nonprofit corporation since the 1950s. Gearing up for the big RLUIPA fight?

Sufism Reoriented might also have the deep pockets for a court challenge, reporting annual income for three years in a row of about $2.5 million and $17 million in assets. Cheesecake Factory CEO David M. Overton is a financial supporter, Lack reported.

The County Planning Commission gave the sanctuary proposal a thumbs up. Saranap residents appealed, and now it’s in the hands of supervisors who will continue their deliberations Wednesday.

In an editorial Thursday, the Contra Costa Times said Saranap residents have legitimate concerns about the project. It has more square footage than a football field and more than two-thirds that of the Mormon Temple in Oakland, which sits on 18 acres. The Sufism plan “would be jammed into three.”

In addition to size, the proposal has other serious problems, the Times said: the safety of the driveway access near a major road bend and “horribly inadequate parking.” 

The Sufis have been  playing the religious discrimination card all along, which is rather disappointing for a group is said to be forward thinking and community oriented. “Religious freedom does not give a faith community the right to run roughshod over reasonable planning guidelines and does not make those who question such a move bigots,” the Times editorial said. “The First Amendment protects not only religious expression, but speech as well. Residents are entitled to have their say -- and they should be listened to.”

For extensive coverage of Tuesday's hearing, go to Walnut Creek Patch. 

Previous Crazy in Suburbia posts:

Big, ugly “spaceship-looking” building or beautiful “sacred place?” Religious group’s sanctuary plans divide once tranquil WC/Lafayette neighborhood, March 15, 2009

Saranap neighbors protest large "spaceship-looking" Sufism sanctuary, March 17, 2009

Which would you rather have in your neighborhood? Sufism Reoriented's 66,000-square-foot sanctuary or Aaron Spelling's 57,000-square-foot "Manor?"March 28, 2009

Is Saranap's Sufism Reoriented sanctuary debate heating up again? Nov. 30, 2009

County requests EIR for controversial Sufism Reoriented sanctuary project Feb. 26, 2010

Sufism Reoriented says it, not the county, initiated the request for an EIR for its new sanctuary April 7, 2010

A Matter of Religious Freedom Nov. 1, 2011

A fundamental showdown: When a church group wants to expand its house of worship in a residential neighborhood Dec. 2, 2011

Supervisors should not cave to religious freedom arguments in the debate about the Sufism Reoriented sanctuary Feb. 19, 2012

 

 

 

 

 

Supervisors should not cave to religious freedom arguments in the debate about the Sufism Reoriented sanctuary

Call me anti-religious. But Sufism Reoriented's desire to build a big white complex in Walnut Creek's residential Saranap community shouldn't get any more consideration than any secular property owner whose grandiose construction ambitions ignite neighborhood concerns.


The three-year-old controversy is now in the hands of Contra County Board of Supervisors. They will hold a special all-day hearing at Walnut Creek's Lesher Center for the Arts Tuesday. Hundreds are expected to speak at the meeting, at which the supervisors will decide on an appeal by Saranap neighbors who disagree with the county Planning Commission's November decision to allow the 66,000-square-foot sanctuary to rise on 3.12 acres on Boulevard Way. 


All along, the 350-member organization has said that the white, multi-domed design of their proposed  sanctuary embodies "our most sacred beliefs and supports our worship."  The
Contra Costa County Interfaith Council supports the Sufi plan, with the Rev. Brian Stein-Webber, director of the council, telling the Contra Costa Times that religions, even those outside the mainstream, as Sufism Reoriented is, should have a right to build within their community. Opposition to design elements of the project are the result of unintended religious bias, one Sufism member, Pascal Kaplan, said during testimony before the Planning Commission. 


Sure, religious organizations should be able to build in their communities, but they shouldn't receive special consideration to build what they want just because they are a religious organization.


In a post in December, I quoted constitutional scholar Marci Hamilton, an expert on church-state relations, on the problems that arise when church organizations gain special privileges in land use and other disputes. A federal law, such as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, shifts the balance of power in residential neighborhoods to religious landowners. "The residential quality of a neighborhood takes a back seat to the interests of the church group," she wrote in her book God versus the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law. "The untoward result is that homeowners become second-class citizens to their religious neighbors."  


Hamilton supports religious freedom, but wants reasonable limits for the good of everyone. "Religion's force can be just another iteration of the drive to power," she writes, saying that Americans should get over an unrealistic and hazardous belief "that religion is always for the good."
She says that "some religious conduct deserves freedom and some requires limitation."


It's possible that religious issues will come up in Tuesday's meeting. religious grounds.


County planning staff have recommended that the supervisors deny the appeal and allow the project to go forward. Most of their reasons for approval hinge on their opinion that Sufism Reoriented has adequately addressed parking, traffic and other environmental impacts. Essentially, staff says the single-family residential high-density zoning in that area allows for churches and religious institutions. The proposed sanctuary meets all the necessary development standards, which are the same for religious buildings as they for residential structures.

But staff also cites Sufism religious practices as a reason for approving its size and design. Neighbors object to the 66,000 square feet -- similar in scale to downtown Walnut Creek's new library or Neiman Marcus department store. They also object to the 13 white domes, saying they are inconsistent with the character of the rest of the neighborhood.


Staff acknowledges that  "the style is unique" but they say it reflects "the central tenants of the applicant's religious beliefs." The organization has also adequately explained its spiritual needs for such a large building, staff say. "The members of Sufism worship and celebrate the founder through the arts, music, drama and dance and therefore, the display, storage and shipping of art, scoring room, prayer hall etc. are necessary."


While Sufism Reoriented says they need this particular design for their religious practices, their desire should not trump neighbors' desire to stop a massive construction project from going in near their homes. As I said, call me anti-religious. Or just say that I agree with Hamilton in the very American ideal of separation of church and state.


In a lot of ways, the Sufism plan is the equivalent of the big ugly house your grandiose neighbor wants to build -- a situation that doesn't necessarily bode well for opponents of the sanctuary project.


I'm sure the homeowners who built that big ugly house on the Alamo hill overlooking Interstate 680 were as dedicated to their views of design and aesthetics as Sufism members are to theirs.


Actually, the county has a tendency to support big ugly houses in unincorporated areas, like that Alamo house or the ones dominating the hill overlooking the Parkmead neighborhood. So, if those projects can go through, I can easily see the Sufism sanctuary project ultimately getting the green light.