04-20-99 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RUMBLE �"- t o A,<. & BUTLER 2 c e 0,0 City of Lake Elmo April 20, 1999 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 1150 Page 2 Article 1, Section 16 of the Minnesota Constitution states, in relevant part "The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed ... nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted..." The fundamental problem with the proposed PF-Ordinance is not that it treats similarly situated uses differently, although in some important instances it does. The fundamental problem with the ordinance is that it infringes on fundamental religious freedoms guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions. Government cannot infringe on the freedom of religion unless it has an overriding or compelling reason related to public health or safety for doing so, and then only if it utilizes the least restrictive means. Lakewood Evangelical Free Chur and Apostolic Bible Church e been trying to locate a worship facility in the City of Lake mo for over two years. T efforts to do so have been repeatedly blocked, as detailed in the hibits to this 1 e proposed PF-Ordinance would prohibit these churches from proceeding wit t eu facilities as proposed, or with any reasonable church facility. The ordinance also, for good measure, prohibits the four existing churches in Lake Elmo from expanding to meet the growing needs of this community. Church representatives have attended dozens of public and private meetings with City officials over the past several years. Many of these meetings are summarized or referenced in the exhibits attached to this letter, including a list of public meetings for which a videotape record is available. Throughout this process the churches have heard only one reason for the roadblocks thrown in front of them and the restrictive, even prohibitive, provisions of the new ordinance: The City does not want any big churches; no mega -churches. The City can regulate the size of commercial uses (although it has chosen not to do so); and can arguably regulate the size of public schools and other governmental facilities. But it cannot regulate the size of a constitutionally protected religious use unless it has an overriding or compelling reason to do so. The desire not to have any big churches in town does not meet the standard. Set forth below are the major issues which the churches see with the proposed ordinance. These concerns were expressed to the Planning Commission and, for the most part, ignored. As we told the Planning Commission, these are the issues which must be addressed for the proposed ordinance to meet minimal constitutional standards. MumoG 598883.1