Feed the hungry, just not here
And by “here,” the city of Phoenix, Arizona means anywhere in a neighborhood zoned residential, even if you’re a church:
A Phoenix ordinance banning charity dining halls in residential neighborhoods withstood a challenge by a north-central Phoenix church.
Retired Arizona Supreme Court Justice Robert Corcoran, serving as a hearing officer, ruled Monday that feeding the homeless at a place of worship can be banned by city ordinance. The decision affects all Phoenix churches with underlying residential zoning.
Over the summer, city officials maintained that CrossRoads United Methodist Church, 7901 N. Central Ave., violated Phoenix zoning code by feeding the poor and homeless on its property, a use that can only occur in commercial or industrial zones. City officials said the decision is effective immediately.
Oh, and this isn’t for the reason you think it is, we are assured:
Paul Barnes, a Phoenix neighborhood activist who spoke at last month’s zoning-adjustment hearing, said churches must be mindful that zoning rules and restrictions apply to everyone.
“It’s not a homeless issue, per se, it’s the fact that you need to have some control, and that’s what the zoning ordinance provides,” he said. “It’s not a problem with homeless people in wealthy neighborhoods. That would be a matter of prejudice. This issue would be setting churches up to avoid zoning ordinances.”
[W]e all know what a problem it is when churches are organized solely to evade zoning regulations. Why, just last week the First Baptist Church and Gas Station as well as the United Methodist Church and Topless Bar opened right in my neighborhood.
Caesar, asked for comment, said that he was pleased with the rendering.
McGehee »
11 November 2009 · 8:19 pm
I set up my church to evade property taxes. The zoning exemption was just icing on the cake.
fillyjonk »
12 November 2009 · 6:04 am
I keep thinking about this. In my town, the “soup kitchen” is in a decommissioned school, nearest to the part of town where its clientele would be likely to live (Yeah, we have a poor side of town). For a lot of the people, it’s within walking distance, which is important, as it serves a number of people who don’t seem to own cars or who seem to have sufficiently severe disabilities that driving would not be possible. You want to have the resources where people can easily get to them; not stuck way on the outskirts of town where, presumably, the “nice” people don’t have to see them but the people who use them have to take three buses and then walk a half-mile to get there.
There would be a lot of rage – and not just on the part of the place’s clientele – if the local politicians tried to pull some kind of thing like this. (A possible protest? Have the homeless/hungry show up at the home of the activist/planner who brought this down to ask him if he can spare a few pieces of bread).
David Fleck »
12 November 2009 · 6:47 am
I found this creepiest of all:
I’ll bet every single resident is in violation, then.