|
|
Post by Peter Primavera on Oct 29, 2019 14:28:15 GMT -5
For this post the word "churches" is a generic term which refers to any property own by a religious organization, such as cemeteries, mosques, temples, synagogues. This also assumes the religious organization is a recognized non-profit as first described in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The issue for all of us promoting historic preservation is whether public moneys should be used to restore or rehabilitate a religious property
The Freedom From Religion Foundation brought suit against the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders and the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in the Foundation’s favor, based largely on a clause in the New Jersey State Constitution (emphasis added): No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under any pretense whatever be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his faith and judgment; nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform.The Freeholders appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but they declined to hear the case. Therefore, the NJ Supreme Court decision stands. So the issues up for debated is:
Was the NJ and US Supreme Court decision, right? - Should there be a Constitutional exception for historic churches?
- What can be done to fill this funding void for these undeniably significant sites?
The need to preserve these historic religious properties is undeniable, but what to do.
Peter Primavera |
|
|
|
Post by Gail Malmgreen on Oct 30, 2019 14:32:30 GMT -5
It seems pretty clear that the appropriation violates the clause as written. On the other hand it's troubling that historically important places of worship can be designated Historic Landmarks but cannot expect any public support to prevent their deterioration or even destruction. In Newark, for example, destruction of historic churches has been all too frequent. An amendment would seem to be in order, but it would not be easy to draft. First, what makes a given site "historic," and who decides? Surely it's not simply a matter of age or even of architectural/artistic significance. And is it really possible to distinguish between repairs and renovation that facilitate worship and work that preserves a historic structure or protects artistic features? Would a program of state aid be less prone to charges of favoritism or mismanagement, and less likely to confine preservation work to more prosperous communities? Would it be possible to use such aid to convert churches no longer in use to other purposes?
I'm no expert on preservation, so I don;t know how common it is for public grants to be given to premises that are n active use by private organizations. But I assume recipients would be liable to restrictions as to maintenance and alterations. Gail Malmgreen, Newark Archives Project
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik L. Burro on Feb 20, 2020 18:35:01 GMT -5
This is a dilemma that becomes more challenging as time goes by. Revisions to the state constitution is not something easily facilitated. It requires " heavy lifting" on the part of the legislature and maybe even a state constitutional convention. which is even less likely. This problem should be of great concern to all who are interested in preserving the significant sites that reflect the mix of religious institutions that have played a significant role in the lives and contributions of New jersey citizens. In view of the state constitution, I do not envision an exception being made for historic churches. The State Supreme Court has little justification, under the letter of the law, as written. So how might the impasse be bridged? Currently the funding agency involved with the distribution of state grants for assistance to historic preservation is a department of the State of New Jersey. I would propose that a separate, independent from the state, preservation Foundation be created by a prominent citizens group for the primary purpose, of receiving funds earmarked for, significantly qualifying historic houses of worship. In addition, to fulfilling well qualifying criteria, and public notice the people, places and historic events that are associated with those institutions, the owners must be willing make their facility open to the public for secular, non-religious activities and events, preferably in conjunction with civic, historical or public service community organizations. Participating non-religious groups would be encouraged to fulfill tours and related activities which highlight the buildings' historical significance to the general public. The state Preservation Office could then continue to make grants, but they would be "blind grants" going to a general fund for public history facilitation and distribution would be entrusted to the Foundation. The State's participation and interaction with the religious entities is shielded and they are assured that it is going only to historic entities that are being guaranteed of secular activities by the Foundation. New Jersey as one of the original colonies in America, has a preservation challenges that is not only widespread and included some particularly significant buildings which are centuries old. And some of those buildings no longer are even partial supported by worshipers or a church organization. The Foundations mandate should also be to encourage alternative use for such buildings, rather than ignoramus's their continued deterioration and abandonment. This can be done by being a recipient of additional funding, beyond the contributions of the state. The Foundation might even, if structured and funded appropriately, might become either the interim owner or managing steward of such properties, and a promoter of alternative, secular uses for those properties in need of alternative utilization, yet being preserved in large part to reflect its original purpose. Board members of the Foundation should be chosen to represent various religious denominations, preservationists, architects, historians, as well as have members with expertise in reconstruction, and property management. The Foundation would be a 501C3, non-profit entity, making it possible to obtain additional funding contributions from other sectors, corporations and participating foundations broadening its funding beyond that contributed by the state. In order to be responsive to all regions of NJ, it should be structured to have representation in all counties, with a plan for interaction and communications with County Heritage Commissions.
|
|
