Texas court rules that newly built Sikh temple near Austin must be razed

[mike r]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703988304575413992348097342.html

AUGUST 14, 2010
Sikhs Dispute Texas Ruling on Temple
By PERRY STEIN

A Texas appellate-court ruling that a newly built Sikh temple near Austin must be razed or moved has sparked an international outcry from members of the religious group, some of whom claim discrimination is at the heart of the case.

The dispute began when a couple in the neighborhood filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the temple violated the subdivision's rules restricting construction to single-family dwellings. The couple, John and Leslie Bollier, say it isn't about religion, but rather the construction of a building that could bring down property values in a residential neighborhood. The Bolliers' newly constructed home has a taxable valuation of more than $600,000, according to public records. Sikh organization Austin Gurdwara Sahib said it cost $350,000 to build the temple, and it paid $100,000 for the land.

"There is a great amount of grief that a religious house of worship is being destroyed," said Amardeep Singh, director of programs at the National Sikh Coalition, a civil-rights organization. Sikhism is the world's fifth-largest religion, and Mr. Singh estimated that about 500,000 Sikhs live in the U.S. Established 500 years ago, Sikhism is a monotheistic religion that stresses the importance of a leading a good moral life. Many adherents wear turbans and uncut hair.

While disputes over buildings between municipal officials and religious groups are common, this case is unusual in that zoning laws aren't an issue. And most property suits don't persist after construction has been completed...

[baldguy]

1. Well, It's not like them Mooslims have the right to freedom of religion. This is America!

:sarcasm:

Havin' them weirdos around certainly bring down property values.

[enlightenment]

Sikh's are not Muslim.

And why were they unaware of the zoning restrictions when they bought the land?

[baldguy]

6. Did you see the :sarcasm: thingy?

[enlightenment]

12. I did - and I recognized you were being sarcastic.

It just wasn't very good sarcasm. I'm not trying to offend you, really - but sometimes just adding a sarcasm tag isn't enough to make a statement worthy of it. Your comment - which would probably offend a Sikh - didn't quite make the cut. In my opinion, which is all we do here.

Feel free to ignore it.

[baldguy]

14. Well, you ain't Roger Ebert.

[HopeHoops]

31. Say WHAT? They aren't even in the same CATEGORY!

I'm calling racism on the issue. They aren't white. I'm white but I'll admit I am biased - against anyone who uses skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or religion to justify considering another person to be less than equal. That's just wrong.

[Bold Lib]

2. I find it hard to believe that these people didn't know about the zoning restrictions.

As such, I'm sure they were informed by the time construction began. They continued and now they have lost in court. Bottom line - they should not have built it there and now face the consequences.

[JI7]

3. there is more in the article, a judge did allow construction but the opponents appealed

and they lost on appeal.

also there is some stuff about how there are a lot of laws that aren't really enforced.

[Bold Lib]

17. Apparently they got standing somewhere.

As long as something like this is being fought in the courts there is a risk of loss. It is foolhardy to invest all the money in construction till all legal avenues are exhausted.

So if "a lot of laws that aren't really enforced" is true are you saying it is ok then to selectively enforce all laws? If such were the case I can see a lot of problems with society. Let's enforce some laws for blacks and others for whites then. Oh wait, we tried that as a society - it didn't work out so well.

[etherealtruth]

4. If it is zoned single family residential how did they get a building permit ...

... without a zoning variance?

[DainBramaged]

5. Greedy relators and builders, simple.

Don't tell them furrenurs about the zones, let them find out themselves.

[Desertrose]

7. Zoning restricitions are not the same as subdivision rules.

If it violated the subdivision's rules...why wait til it's built? You mean these people didn't know what was going up in their subdivision until it was built?? How did it pass city codes/permits in the first place and yet the subdivision suddenly now has a problem?


I call bullshit on this.

[etherealtruth]

10. From the article

"While disputes over buildings between municipal officials and religious groups are common, this case is unusual in that zoning laws aren't an issue. And most property suits don't persist after construction has been completed."

This stinks to high heaven

[Desertrose]

11. These people moved in while it was being built...then started a lawsuit??

The temple was built to replace a mobile home that the congregation of about 60 families in central Texas had been using as a place of worship since 2003. Construction was completed in April and has been used by congregation ever since.


Mr. Bains said the congregation faced no opposition until 2008, when the Bolliers moved into the neighborhood and filed suit while the temple was under construction.

"Though this is a civil-rights issue from our perspective, in the courts it has been framed as a property issue," said Mr. Singh of the National Sikh Coalition.

[Bold Lib]

15. Irrelevant. Just because no one filed suit before does not mean the rules can be ignored.

The rules are there for EVERYONE to follow, not just for some to follow.

[ThomasQED]

8. I find it hard to believe the neighbors prefer a mobile home on the property

which apparently was also against the rules, but they didn't say anything about that for 5 years.

I also find it hard to believe the builder didn't check the covenants of the subdivision, and NO ONE in the subdivision said anything until this point.

[Bold Lib]

20. Lots of strange things here. What is not strange though

is that often it is only one person/owner in the neighborhood that stands up and makes sure things are enforced.

[girl gone mad]

26. A relative used similar rules to "evict" a house of worship that went up next door.

It was definitely not a case of religious bigotry.

They had many people living on the property full time, wandering through her yard at all hours. They frequently held events with hundreds of guests, loud music and chanting, ringing bells, people blocking her driveway with their cars, big tents put up, litter left behind.

I know she tried to reach an agreement with them before going through the courts.

I have sympathy for the residents in this case, because churches are too often inconsiderate, noisy and unfriendly neighbors.

[Warpy]

9. Zoning's not the problem

"Bee Cave officials say the temple meets zoning laws for that area, and it doesn't enforce private residency restrictions. Only property owners that are subject to the covenants can file suit to enforce the rules."

It's a subdivision covenant and the question will be whether or not this covenant appears on the deed to the land and whether or not it's enforceable at this point. The presence of churches within the area would be a great disincentive to ruling in favor of the homeowners.

Some covenants have been struck down, especially those governing the religious or racial makeup of any subdivision. Others governing things like house and lot size, have been upheld.

This will be interesting to watch as it grinds through the court system.

[Bold Lib]

18. So they violated the restrictive covenants of the area.

Then they really should have known they had a potential problem as they were in a residential area. I know of several restrictive covenant issues in the news offhand. Everyone of them the person/owner that was in violation lost. That's the deal when you sign on the bottom line. They KNEW of the restrictions and arrogantly proceeded. Now they suffer the consequences.

[Warpy]

21. Maybe, maybe not

Since zoning wasn't a problem, they might be in a multi use area. The article was clear as mud on that account. In any case, it seems they were already occupying the property in a temporary structure before they broke ground.

As I said, it will depend largely on whether or not the restriction was spelled out in the title and whether or not the area is already multi use.

As I said, some covenants have been overruled, some have not. This one bears watching and not a rush to judgment without the facts.

[Canuckistanian]

13. Can you imagine the fuss if the zoning commission had denied a CHRISTIAN church?

Fox would have a telethon.

[Bold Lib]

19. Doesn't matter. They would have been in the wrong for building it where it was prohibited.

[islandmkl]

22. you assume the fine print...

maybe it exists...maybe it doesn't...

seems foolhardy to assume anything, either way, about who knew what, when, etc. at this point and make conclusions...

if the covenant(s) are not CLEARLY DEFINED, in the contract for sale of the property to begin with, then there will be further court activity...

they may lose their temple, but regain their investment...

someone has dropped the ball(s), and it just might possibly not been the Sikhs...

[Bold Lib]

23. You assume there was none. The church lost in court.

Do you really think there was no fine print???

The only way I can see the Sikhs getting their money back is if there was a zoning violation and the government official screwed up and gave the building permit. The Sikhs acting in good faith would have recourse. If the "fine print" regarding restrictive covenants was not there then the Sikhs would have one as there was no proper notification.

[JI7]

24. the war on Christians

[Odin2005]

16. Fucking bigots!

[Arugula Latte]

25. Could we raze churches, too?

What colossal space wasters.

:hide:

[populistdriven]

27. almost as bad as golf courses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E73RM9gS7bU

[HopeHoops]

28. Gee, I wonder if they'd do that to a so called "Christian" church.

No offense to anyone on DU who lives in Texas, but there are a LOT of reasons that people (including me) make fun of the state. I spent a lot of time in the Dallas/Fort Worth area (mostly in Irvine) on business - and no it wasn't because Chuck-E-Cheese's headquarters is there - so I'm not without experience. As a vegetarian, it was rather challenging. Apparently cows are considered a vegetable. I'll admit that there's a strong argument to be made that this is true based on their brain capacity, but from a dietary perspective they don't qualify.

And another thing - nobody in Texas seems to be able to dance. They do this foot shuffle thing around a roller rink, but that's not even close to dancing. I also didn't find anyone who could shoot darts or play pool - but they did get rather pissed that a Yankee with long hair and a beard could beat the shit out of them at both. It was sort of like playing Candyland with a 4-year old - eventually you get to the point where you want to lose just so the game will be over, but even that didn't work.

Again, I don't intend to offend anyone on DU who lives in Texas, but I'm not bullshitting here. That's direct personal experience.

[PaulaFarrell]

29. sounds like you didn't get out much when you were there

(it's Irving, not Irvine)

[HopeHoops]

30. Yeah, I screw that up 50% of the time. Dry municipality (county?)

You can tell when you left it - wall-to-wall beer and liquor stores and strip joints. And no, I didn't get out much. Computer geeks tend to be stuck in a small cold room with ten million keyboards and too few monitors for 87 hours a day and then go back to a cheap hotel room and pass out. Actually, it wouldn't matter if it was a 4-star hotel room - all I would do is pass out.

[KamaAina]

32. They've tried

and the Xtian churches rely on something called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

Apparently it doesn't apply to Sikhs, so it should have been titled the Fundie Xtian Domination Act of 1993. :eyes:

[ThomasQED]

33. Actually DFW has some of the best vegetarian restaurants around

and there are more spots all the time. I hear from my friends who live there, and have gotten to try several of them.

Also, the city is Irving, not Irvine.

And I believe insulting an entire state is against DU rules.

On edit: Now that I think about it, Dallas has a great hare krishna temple with a restaurant in it, in a residential area. It's pretty amazing that you can't even see the place (which is very tall) until you're right in front of it. It's true that the hare krishnas have bought most of the houses on that particular street, but the rest of the neighborhood is fine with it. Of course, it's not a fancy "subdivision". It's been there for decades.