| One way to know
whether a particular practice is fair or not is to see if it
is fair for both parties.
The last two weeks I have been discussing the
practice of eminent domain and the detrimental affect that its
abuse has on the public. Churches are a target for this abuse
because they do not pay property taxes.
Many cities are now using eminent domain as
a way of increasing their tax income and to improve their appeal
by removing “blighted” areas in favor of more desirable occupancies.
But let’s look at this from another perspective.
Since eminent domain is practiced for the “public good”, and
churches are good for the public, why can’t churches go to cities
and ask them to condemn entire city blocks so that they can
build new facilities in “blighted” areas?
After all, it is very difficult for churches
to find a single tract of land within the city limits that would
be large enough to be viable for a growing church. In my opinion,
no church should buy less than ten acres, and more would be
even better.
But the only place you will find tracts of that
size are either in industrial areas that are not in desirable
locations, or in residential areas. Most cities have areas of
substandard housing, and here is where a church can do the city
a big favor.
The removal of old, substandard housing would
mean that new, non-combustible, sprinkled buildings would be
constructed, thereby reducing the load on the local fire department.
When churches come into a neighborhood, they
bring other things of value that can’t be easily quantified
in dollar amounts, but certainly the city and the state would
see a reduction their overhead as a result of their presence.
For example, a church who has after-school activities
for kids will help keep kids from getting into trouble, reduce
the number of latch-key children who are at risk because they
are at home alone, and teach kids to be responsible citizens.
Surely that is worth a lot of money.
When a church moves into a neighborhood, they
also provide for the health and welfare of those who are in
need by providing food, help to the elderly, and many other
volunteer services that the local government might otherwise
have to perform.
When a church moves into a blighted area, they
certainly will put up a building that creates a better image
for the city than a bunch of dilapidated homes.
Though there is truth in what I just said, obviously
I am being somewhat facetious. Can you imagine the reaction
of a city council, much less the public at large, if a church
did the same thing that many developers are doing, asking a
city to help them to legally steal property under the guise
of doing it for the “public good”? It would be considered to
be outrageous.
I hope no church would ever consider forcing
a lot of people out of their homes just because they wanted
their land.
However, as churches grow, they inadvertently
put pressure on their neighbors. This is especially true where
churches occupy the same block with homes and have no other
place to grow. It is very easy for animosity to grow between
the church and the homeowners when the homeowners know that
the church wants and needs their property, but they don’t want
to move.
Most churches that need the residential properties
around them usually acquire them incrementally as they purchase
the homes on their block, one-by-on, sometimes over decades.
For the last home on the block, the inevitable can be very frustrating
and intimidating.
Some churches have even purchased the homes
across a street so that they own all of the properties on both
sides of the street, allowing them to close the street and use
the street property for expansion. They can do a similar thing
in order to close alleys that subdivide their block.
There is nothing wrong with churches that expand
in this way. However, it needs to be done in a way that allows
homeowners to be compensated and treated fairly. Churches should
never be guilty of forcing people from their homes, and should
avoid putting themselves in a position where the public perceives
that people are being forced out. To do so would be no different
than the practice of the abuse of eminent domain, even if eminent
domain was not used to carry it out.
|
