Dear editor:
Most of us are familiar with the Dad’s Place Church and the City of Bryan’s dispute over the safety of the homeless sleeping at night at Dad’s Place Church.
There are actually three cases going on over this issue. The first is in Federal Court and is on its way to the United States Supreme Court.
This case isn’t about the safety of the homeless but it’s about government overreach (in this case the City of Bryan) by imposing fire code violations to stop or greatly inhibit a church from the free expression of its faith. The ultimate goal here is to stop governments from excessive interference of the church’s right to minister as it feels God is leading.
This is the same battle that was fought in 1999 over zoning violation issues and the church won in the US Supreme Court. Google RLUIPA: “RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that substantially burden the religious exercise of churches or other religious assemblies or institutions.”
The second case is in the Ohio State Appellate Court now. This is the one that was recently decided by Judge Stelzer in the Williams County Common Pleas Court against the church.
The Ohio Attorney General entered a “Friend of the Court” brief saying that he felt the church has the right to stay open 24/7 and allow people to sleep there. The Appellate Court ordered a stay to Judge Stelzer’s decision to shut down the 24/7 aspect of the church’s ministry and throw out the people staying there. That means the church can continue to operate 24/7 until it makes it to the courtroom at the appellate level.
And speaking of the Ohio Attorney General, the city’s mayor just blew him off as having no idea of what he was talking about because he’s running for governor and he never checked with her to hear the city’s side.
I listened to the man, and he clearly had reviewed the facts of the case before getting involved. One of his aides said that he had spent a lot of time reviewing the facts before coming to Bryan to see the church and meet the pastor.
The third case is in the Bryan Municipal Court and Judge North is expected to rule on it soon, if not already. This case is a criminal case against the Dad’s Place Church’s pastor, Chris Avell, for not installing a sprinkler system in the church building as ordered by the Bryan Fire Chief. I fully expect the court to find him guilty and it will again be appealed immediately.
Now you can see why things are so complicated. Perhaps I can help clarify some of it. First, the church will initially lose at all levels because all the courts are ruling on current law but the case is in the process of helping to change the current way the laws are enforced at the federal level, which when done, will change all these cases at the state and municipal level as well.
Given the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, it is highly likely that Dad’s Place Church will win and the governments will be somewhat restrained in how they apply fire code violations just like RLUIPA did for zoning codes. Again, remember that this case is not about safety but about governmental overreach.
I should also point out that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development was initially going to represent Pastor Avell in the municipal case against him.
Apparently, the city got wind of it and changed the violations from zoning to fire and from code violations to criminal violations. HUD’s Civil Division only handles civil cases so the attorney for HUD called First Liberty in Texas and recommended that they pick up the Dad’s Place case in Ohio. That’s how the lawyers representing Chris Avell and Dad’s Place came into this.
Now, allow me to expose some of what has been going on “behind the scenes”. The fire chief made about 18 visits in 1 year to Dad’s Place continually finding new fire code violations.
That means things like that on one visit he found a stove without a hood. That stove was there on his previous visits but he never mentioned it needing a hood. Now, suddenly, it did. Why was it not brought out on the earlier visits?
The church immediately ordered the hood the chief said we needed. Then on the next visit he said it was the wrong hood. His mistake. Then he said we violated city code by hanging the hood without a building permit.
Apparently, one needs a building permit to put screws in a wall and hang a stove hood on them and then plug it into an electric socket. If so, then we must also need one for every clock we hang or light we put on the ceiling or wall.
Seriously? The people were told they could not sleep on the floor, or in chairs hooked together or on a cot but they could sleep reclining in chairs against a wall or sitting on the floor leaning on a wall.
So the church bought 15 recliners for the people to use. Guess what? That turned out to now be a violation. It was OK and now suddenly it is not OK. Did I mention that several of these 18 or so visits were at 5:30 in the morning?
Makes one wonder if the goal was safety or catching people sleeping? And why bring the police with you on visits? The chief admitted in court that he had never done that before.
Sounds kinda strange, don’t you think? Also, EVERY VIOLATION was fixed while he was there or before his next visit. I know you’ve heard differently, but I’ve been there and seen it taking place!
Now, let me address the current violation of not having sprinklers. Well over a dozen inspections and never a mention of the need for sprinklers. And, again, suddenly, they are so needed that without them, the church must kick people out into the cold for their safety.
Yep, better to be safe in the freezing weather outside than to be unsafe in a heated building without sprinklers. A building that has people there every day all week and over 75 worshippers every Sunday. Hmmm? Yep, makes perfect sense to me. Duhhh.
Of course, the two motels and nursing homes in town are safe without a sprinkler system but the church isn’t. How can anyone say that? Yet, that is the city’s position. Sound right to you? Again, it sounds a lot like harassment to me.
Oh, I forgot to mention that the church was given 7 days to install sprinklers or face a $1,000 a day fine. Yep, 7 days to find an architect, have him draw up plans for the 100+ yr old building, submit them to the State of Ohio for approval, find a contractor to install them and get the city to run a dedicated water line to the church from the main water line. All in 7 days!
Sound silly to you? Sounds like harassment to me. And exactly what this case is about. Making things harder for a church than for other entities under its jurisdiction.
No one has ever been given 7 days to do what would take a year to accomplish. We learned that the usual citation is a 90 day time frame and is always extended because it can’t be done even in 90 days.
More overreach and harassment. Everything up to this point has been facts, now allow me to speculate. Is the city’s real issue safety for the homeless or the presence of the homeless in downtown Bryan?
We know that many of the city’s movers and shakers are trying to make downtown Bryan a “Destination Place”. A place where people will plan to vacation or visit like Hershey Pennsylvania or Frankenmuth Michigan.
In that light, do you think they might not want the homeless around? Do you think that having a bunch of homeless will spoil the image of a “destination city”? I’m just asking.
Also, I believe there was a point where the church and the city could have come to an agreement but the Mayor refused to sit down and talk.
I feel the reason we are in this mess is that Mayor Schlade wouldn’t return phone calls or meet with Pastor Avell. She sent the fire chief and the police to harass the church rather than talking with them. Is that the action of someone truly concerned for the safety of a few people or of someone trying to eliminate a “problem”?
I’ll close with the reminder that this case is not about the safety of a few homeless, it is about governmental overreach and harassment.
Mike Kelly
Retired Pastor
