Newtown, Conn. goes racist

[donsu]

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-cambud0307.artmar07,0,6285768.story?coll=hc-headlines-home


Town vs. Buddhists
Temple Dispute In State's High Court


Many members of the Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut fled the "killing fields" of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime three decades ago. Their crucible now is a pitched legal battle over whether they can build a temple on 10 acres they own in Newtown.

The state Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether Newtown's denial of a special permit for the temple rises to a violation of state and federal laws that bar political entities from putting undue burdens on the exercise of religious freedom.

-snip-

Newtown officials and neighbors on Boggs Hill Road oppose use of the rural property for a temple that could attract up to 450 people on the handful of days when religious festivals are held.

The Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission, in its unanimous decision in February 2003 denying the special permit application, stated in part: "Although the commission would welcome the Buddhist religion into the community, the planned and expected future level of activity proposed ... is too intense."

-snip-

The commission initially gave six reasons for its denial of the permit application, including that the Asian architecture would have a negative impact on property values and was not in harmony with the area's traditional New England architecture. Superior Court Judge Deborah Kochiss Frankel ruled that five of the commission's reasons were unsubstantiated, but upheld the decision based on the commission's concern that the society had not yet obtained well and septic permits.
-snip-
----------------------


shame on Newtown

[madinmaryland]

1. Many of the smaller communities in CT are real sticklers for

keeping to the traditional NE architecture. Just watch "This Old House". They actually have historical preservation groups for certain areas within a community.

Which is fine, until you realize that they would be happy to let a wally-mart in.

:grr:

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. "They actually have historical preservation groups"... uh, YEAH. how is this racist?

Unlike in Blue NY and SF and Portland, where historic preservation doesn't count for shit.

[MADem]

2. I'd say they're being a bit burdensome -- one can modify the architecture if that's a REAL concern

(hell, slap some cedar shingles on the thing, and Bob's your Uncle) but this stinks like "We don't want all those....er....ORIENTAL....people coming to the town..."

IMO.

[Solon]

9. Actually, that's the most puzzling aspect of this...

Most areas I've been in, the most varied architecture are the Churches, Temples and Synagogues.

Even within a denomination, the architecture for Christian Churches would vary wildly, of various ages, from a century old or more, to less than a year old, in some cases. Catholicism, in my area, is practiced widely, and we have everything from a Basilica modeled, roughly, on the Vatican, to another Catholic church which looks like a big assed BOX, and doubled as a nuclear fallout shelter, last time I was there, it still had the sign on the outside with the radiation symbol on it. The Catholic church closest to me to me is an Octagonal building that's shaped roughly like a shallow cone, with a steeple in the center of the roof.

Not to mention the various architecture of other churches and temples, from traditional architecture to simply put, a little odd. I imagine that if this were a mega church, looking like a sports stadium, in size and shape, then they would have less of a problem. Generally, the only resonable restriction I could see for churches is to restrict them to main roads somewhat away from residential areas, if possible, to deal with the traffic and noise.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. No, most historic, rural communities hate mega-churches, too.

Do some research... the State (at all levels of government) REQUIRES new churches to be built as mega-churches.

They are covered by the same design requirements as shopping malls and big box stores. 1 parking space for every pew, 100 foot wide access roads, etc.

That's vast acres of asphalt even for a "normal congregation".

Hence the term "mega church".

Inner cities have the same building codes now as the suiburbs, which is why churches are being forced out into the suburbs along with housing, shops, etc.

Forced depopulation by parking mandates.

Of course anyone would oppose such hideous structures but that is the law.

Nothing new can be built in America unless it includes acres of parking.

When old buildings burn down, they are not rebuilt, even in desirable "historic" towns like Annapolis MD. Why? "No parking" and "roads are too narrow for MODERN fire trucks". Jurisdictions aren't allowed to buy small, European-style fire trucks. Alleys less than 20 feet wide are also banned. Every street, lane, or footpath must be traversible by a vehicle the size of a semi-trailer with 50-foot radius intersections.

Automobile sewers.

I think the community is doing the right thing opposing this state-mandated greenfields development.

[Solon]

19. I have many of the same complaints...

Urban planning should revolve around public transportation, and that thing Americans abhor, walking. I mean, some of this stuff just doesn't make sense, and all it does is encourage sprawl, which I hate. Though, to give some cities credit, many have had there old main streets and historic neighborhoods declared national landmarks, the city I live in is an example of that, and has many historic building that have been restored and used today. Granted, my biggest annoyance is the lack of public transportation TO this historic area, and its open to cars, even thought the brick road on Main Street gets torn up by all the vehicles that traverse it.

Cities should be remade, basically, restore old sections of towns, when possible, and redevelop the rest with an emphasis on pedestrian traffic and public transportation. Make NEIGHBORHOODS again, instead of this isolationist mini-plantation sprawl.

[MADem]

15. I live not far from a hindu joint, and it fits right in with the neighboring architecture

And with the community, too. Except when they scare the sweet shit out of us with the firecrackers and fireworks for weddings and what have you. Once we figure out that we aren't being mortared, it's a nice show.

Some towns DO have "Stepford laws" with regard to architecture, and that's fine. These people need a worship space, and the exterior materials of the building can surely be accomodated. But these bums are putting up roadblocks (septic, e.g.) before they've even broken ground to pour a foundation. How hard is it, really, to give these guys some guidelines (if they exist in law and aren't fiction based on prejudice?) and a little HELP in processing their application?

Some people are just bastards. May the children of these racists marry the children of those petitioners, and switch houses of worship while they're at it!

[Solon]

20. Fireworks for weddings sounds cool, actually, I may do that whenever I decide to get married...

Have to get a girlfriend first, of course. :) Also, she would have to approve. :)

Also, I understand that some towns have "Stepford" laws. Most cities, I've seen, with exceptions of certain historic neighborhoods, allow for quite a variety, some even encourage it, adding character to a city if they can, within reasonable limits, of course. Having an Asian style building, though, is something I don't think would affect property values, either negatively or positively. It really depends on how the entire property is handled, as another responder to my post said, they may have to pave over most of it, which I view as an eyesore regardless of what the building's purpose is.

Of course, this being a Buddhist temple, I've seen many of them, and they are quite beautiful, so I don't see that as a reasonable objection.

[northzax]

3. I don't see this as racist

unless you can demonstrate that similar permission was given to a caucasian-based faith to build a similar structure.

[Autonomy]

5. It's not likely abject racism on the town's part

but it does impact the freedom of religion because of a cultural differences. It's a shame that they will not be able to continue practicing a part of their culture over an issue that is likely resolvable. This seems like an injustice to me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Get a load of this eyesore.

Apparently, some have rather wide view on "traditional New England architecture."

[Autonomy]

6. What a dump.

I'll take it off their hands for a song. I could fix it up with some spackle and elbow grease.

[WI_DEM]

7. what song would you sing to take it off their hands?

[kskiska]

10. as rendered by Thomas Kinkade

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. What's wrong with it? A bit of a North Dallas Special, sure

But the main complaint I have is the huge, treeless front yard with a driveway cutting thru it.

[MADem]

16. Was Disney the architect, perchance??? NT

[hughee99]

8. I'm sure the town would welcome the "buddhist religion" into the

community, it's just the people that aren't welcome. I have a feeling that if it was Richard Gere (or some other prominent buddhist) who wanted to build the temple, the Zoning Commission would have made as much noise about this as the sound of one hand clapping.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. No, they oppose mega-churches in general.

And for good reason.

Visit Colesville, MD sometime. Lots of denominations there. A veritable United Nations of mega-churches. All of them consuming farmland and bleeding the city white.

[MADem]

17. Four hundred and fifty people, MAX (on holidays) is a mega church?

I thought megachurches were those stadium eyesores, the Ted Haggard crowds. Ten thousand folks and up.

Most churches in my county accomodate three, four, five hundred people. They don't normally GET that many, except maybe Easter and Xmas, but the seats are there.

[dkofos]

18. Maybe they should have told them they were building a

christian church and not a Buddhist temple.

I doubt they would though, I've never met a dishonest Buddhist.

Can't say that about christians.