In the SUPERIOR COURT Fulton County, Georgia Case No. 2010CV180058 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF GEORGIA INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION VS. CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA, EVA GALAMBOS, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SANDY SPRING, GEORGIA AND JOHN PAULSON, DIANNE FRIES, WILLIA COPPEDGE Filed on 01/14/2010 Case Type: APPEAL Judge: Wendy L. Shoob Current Status: FiledDefendant Defendant AttorneysCity Of Sandy Springs Henderson, Laurel Elaine160 CLAIREMONT AVENUESUITE 430DECATUR, GA 30030The City Council Of The City Of Sandy Springs Henderson, Laurel Elaine160 CLAIREMONT AVENUESUITE 430DECATUR, GA 30030Galambos, Eva Henderson, Laurel Elaine160 CLAIREMONT AVENUESUITE 430DECATUR, GA 30030Paulson, John Henderson, Laurel Elaine160 CLAIREMONT AVENUESUITE 430DECATUR, GA 30030Fries, DianneS Henderson, Laurel Elaine160 CLAIREMONT AVENUESUITE 430DECATUR, GA 30030Collins, William Coppedge Henderson, Laurel Elaine160 CLAIREMONT AVENUESUITE 430DECATUR, GA 30030Jenkins, Ashley Henderson, Laurel Elaine160 CLAIREMONT AVENUESUITE 430DECATUR, GA 30030Dejulio, Tiberio Henderson, Laurel Elaine160 CLAIREMONT AVENUESUITE 430DECATUR, GA 30030Mcenerny, Karen Meinzen Henderson, Laurel Elaine160 CLAIREMONT AVENUESUITE 430DECATUR, GA 30030Plaintiff Plaintiff AttorneysChurch Of Scientology Of Georgia Inc Dillard, G. Douglas3500 LENOX ROAD NESUITE 760Atlanta, GA 30326Hearings03/09/2010 Tuesday 9:30am CIVIL NON JURYEvents and Orders of the Court04/05/2010 MICROFILMED FILE03/05/2010 LEAVE OF ABSENCE03/02/2010 ORDER ON MOTION03/02/2010 ORDER02/25/2010 MOTION02/11/2010 LEAVE OF ABSENCE01/29/2010 Acknowledgement of Service01/19/2010 AMENDMENT01/14/2010 CASE INITIATION FORM01/14/2010 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
This Article questions whether traditional judicial deference to local land use regulators is justified in light of the highly discretionary, and often corrupt, modern system of land use regulation. In 2000, Congress determined, first, that unlike other forms of economic legislation, land use regulation lacks objective, generally applicable standards, leaving zoning officials with unlimited discretion in granting or denying zoning applications, and second, that this unlimited discretion lends itself to religious discrimination. Congress therefore enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which requires courts to apply strict scrutiny review to land use decisions that impact religious land uses.Since its enactment, the constitutionality of RLUIPA has been debated extensively. Many scholars maintain that the statute is an overly broad exemption that creates a privileged class of land users and allows religious institutions to avoid a community's reasonable land use concerns. In contrast, this Article argues that in enacting RLUIPA, Congress identified a global flaw in land use regulation that impacts all land users, but limited its remedy to religious land users. While RLUIPA's strict scrutiny review is clearly inappropriate for land use cases that involve neither fundamental rights nor suspect classes, traditional judicial deference is equally inappropriate in light of the discretionary nature of modern zoning. Fortunately, the Supreme Court established the appropriate standard of review in its earliest zoning cases. This Article thus maintains that RLUIPA is significant because it highlights a fundamental flaw in local land use regulation, and because its bifurcated approach to judicial review of zoning decisions revives an early facial/as-applied dichotomy in land use jurisprudence and encourages more meaningful judicial review of all as-applied land use decisions.
This paper grapples with the difficult question how best to interpret the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which creates a prophylactic remedy in favor of religious land users burdened by local land use regulations. Where the burden on religious exercise is substantial, RLUIPA subjects the regulation to strict scrutiny review. Several scholars object to RLUIPA on the grounds that it violates principles of federalism and equality between religious and non-religious landowners. Other scholars make the case for an expansive RLUIPA on the ground that the First Amendment privileges religious exercise over other types of land use.This article first attempts to narrow the debate about RLUIPA. It suggests that scholars are arguing about what this article calls the RLUIPA interest gap, the space between religious discrimination hidden behind facially-neutral land use regulations, on one hand, and regulations that are narrowly tailored to compelling state interests, on the other. After reviewing the federal courts’ constructions of RLUIPA’s key terms, this article concludes that the RLUIPA interest gap is narrower than most scholars suppose. Focusing on the RLUIPA interest gap and the implications of that gap for communities grappling with the implications of regulating religious land use should clarify what is and what is not at stake in the debate over RLUIPA’s scope. This article affirms the claim of Natural Law philosophers and religious scholars that religion is a basic human good, which deserves the protection of law. However, it denies that the fundamental value of religion is a reason to give religious land users an exemption from land use regulation that non-religious land users do not enjoy.Next, this article challenges the common assumption that RLUIPA’s strict scrutiny review is necessarily fatal. It attempts to identify some compelling state interests on the basis of which local governing authorities may burden religious land uses. The thesis of this latter part of the argument is that interests in direct protection of basic (underived, ultimate) human goods are compelling, for purposes of strict scrutiny analysis. If this thesis is correct, courts and scholars can more productively focus on the second prong of the strict scrutiny standard: narrow tailoring. A close connection between a community’s compelling interest and the land use decision chosen to protect that interest is a strong indication that the local government has not engaged in religious discrimination.
Fire Protection EngineerDavid Adams has 10 years of experience overseeing the regulatory review and jurisdictional responsibilities for 16,000 state of Georgia owned buildings. He is an ICC Certified Fire Code Official and is a Chief Fire Officer, (CFOD) from the Commission on Fire Accreditation International. David has served as a licensed architect in the private sector for 10 years. Adams is a graduate of the University of Florida and Ohio State University.
Nancy Leathers, AICPCommunity Development DirectorNancy Leathers, AICPNancy Leathers has been involved in community development throughout the Greater Atlanta area for the past 30 years. Her career follows a path from private consultant planner to public service in Fulton County, where she contributed to many areas, serving as deputy director, chief of operations and eventually becoming the director of the Fulton County Department of Environment and Community Development. Leathers received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Minnesota and her master’s degree from the University of Chicago. She is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, the American Planning Association and the Council for New Urbanism.
Abstract: a) Rich frat boys discover religion to throw noisy parties forbidden by local zoning laws. b) Becket fund blackmails and inflames community to get a courtroom notch on its belt c) Where declaring a Laundromat as “religious” provides exemption from regulatory oversight.
One more document trickles out:Supplement to plaintiff's initial disclosures-081110
Francois Koutchouk of RLUIPA.info talks with Tom Smith on The Edge and discusses the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a U.S. federal law that gives any organization that calls itself "religious" special zoning privileges, in contravention to the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This aired earlier today. An mp3 is available for download here:http://www.theedgewithtomsmith.com/pgms/indexpg.htmladditional info at http://www.rluipa.info/index.html
I've downloaded the dox so far. I got a few paragraphs into the Complaint and just wanted to throw things.There's one document that was marked as *Restricted* and I couldn't get to. Hmmmmm.Case 1:10-cv-00082-CAP, for future reference.I'll be checking back and keeping an eye on it. Also looking for a place to upload the dox so it only has to be paid for once.
Author
Topic: RLUIPA Law Suit Filed by Church of Scientology of Georgia (Read 101210 times)