DOJ Takes Stand Against Nonprofit NIMBY-ism
Charity is nice, but sometimes not in my back yard. Let’s not be fake about how we really feel. Out in Santa Ana, Micah’s Way is just trying to be true to its charitable mission, but people are feeling uncomfortable and want them to do it somewhere else. Just not here. Here is Micha’s Way’s mission statement:
Orange County is one of the wealthiest places on Earth. Its economy is the size of Israel or Malaysia. Yet there are over 35,000 homeless people in OC. 7,000 are children, 2,000 are veterans, and 4,000 are of retirement age. (OC Register 2005) And nearly half a million people, according to FEMA, are one check away from being homeless. We get in contact with the people we serve in various ways. Check out our Outreach page to read about MiCafé our most popular outreach project. Micah’s Way is an all-volunteer, non-profit, tax-exempt public benefit corporation. Tax ID 54-2166918. All donated money goes directly into programs to help poor people.
Micah’s Way distributes food and other life items (toothpaste, socks, old clothes, etc.) and naturally the homeless gather and hang around. All smelly and unwashed, I guess. But that is who Jesus used to hang out with. There is no indication that Micah’s Way proselytizes. It just helps the needy and it doesn’t claim to be a church. The only indication of religious motivation is its name, taken from Micah 6:8. Well, problem is, Micah’s Way is getting in the way. The Center is located downtown near the professional district, according to the LA Times, and “well, we just don’t want them kinda folks hanging around. Its not that we don’t like them, its just well . . . can’t they go somewhere else where we don’t have to see them?” I am paraphrasing here. Ok, really I just made that quote up and attributed it to the suits downtown sipping latte grande mochas. But we all think it, sometimes. People are selfish, we were born that way. Anyway, Micah’s Way sued when the city denied them permission to do what they were doing, and now DOJ is involved.
From the DOJ Press Release:
SANTA ANA, California – The Justice Department has filed a statement of interest in a federal lawsuit explaining that the act of distributing food and drinks to people who are homeless by Micah’s Way, a faith-based organization in Santa Ana that helps people in need, could be religious exercise under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).
The statement of interest was filed Tuesday afternoon in Micah’s Way v. the City of Santa Ana, a lawsuit alleging that the City of Santa Ana imposed a substantial burden on Micah’s Way’s religious exercise. At issue is the city’s denial of an occupancy certificate to Micah’s Way on the grounds that it was providing food and drinks to people who are homeless in violation of the city’s zoning ordinance.
According to its complaint, Micah’s Way has a religious duty to help people in need, including by providing food and drink to someone who is hungry. After denying the occupancy certificate, the city informed Micah’s Way that it could not feed people who are homeless at its resource center under any circumstances and that if it continued to do so, Micah’s Way would be subject to fines and potential criminal prosecution.
The city filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing, in part, that providing food and drinks to people who are homeless is not religious exercise and that its denial of an occupancy certificate did not substantially burden Micah’s Way’s religious exercise. The Justice Department’s statement of interest argues that feeding people who are homeless may be religious exercise protected by RLUIPA, and that the city’s denial of an occupancy certificate and complete prohibition on feeding people who are homeless may have imposed a substantial burden on Micah’s Way’s religious exercise, in violation of RLUIPA.
“The free exercise of religion is a bedrock principle of our nation,” said United States Attorney Martin Estrada. “Religious groups should be entitled to exercise their religion by providing charitable services based in their religious beliefs. Our office firmly opposes actions that block religious groups from carrying out their spiritual mission to help others in need.”
The city should stop being stupid and ugly in way that only Americans are good at, that’s my layperson’s take. But legally, if the organization looks like any secular SRO or foodbank, what makes it “religious” and therefore subject to heightened protections? What’s to stop any foodbank from naming itself after a religious writing and then claiming religious exemption from zoning laws? I’m just asking.
darryll jones