It’s human nature to come up with a bunch of excuses when we are asked to do something we don’t want to do. Only after debunking these series of rationalizations do we arrive at the true reason for resistance. For St. Paul, that day has dawned. We have worked through the multitude of excuses including enforcement, blaming, less than perfect ordinances etc. to arrive at the true reason for not addressing the ICW code violations and that reason is fear. Some town leaders have refused to discuss this issue any further during town council meetings which hints at legal advisement from our town attorney. The town of St. Paul is afraid of getting sued by those associated with the ICW. Even though the town would be sitting high on the mountain of justice if it did enforce code, it refuses to do so out of fear. That fact, in and of itself, should cast a shadow of shame among a select few of our town leaders since they repeatedly refuse to defend their citizens. The fact that those same town leaders have done arguably nothing practical to solve the problem nor fortify the legal standing of the town with evidence is unacceptable. Furthermore, during the last citizen comments it was mentioned that the town staff stated that they had no intention of ever fixing the parking issues associated with the ICW.
Believe it or not, it gets worse. After interviewing anonymous representatives associated with this issue, a consensus among the leadership has been stated that the plan is to approve the permits that the ICW needs if the property owner promises to build a legitimate parking lot within four years. This reasoning is falsely justified by comments like “Well, the ICW plans to move elsewhere anyways within four years as they are growing, so the problem will just float away and disappear.” It has been documented that we have already been lied to from the ICW leadership and congregants regarding their three part plan to improve the parking situation, so why would we think any parking lot would ever be built? Why would any group be permitted to have FOUR years to take action to rectify their ordinance violation? Other houses of worship requesting special use permits are not granted one and then given years to make their location compliant while operating. That is not how the process works. The town has repeatedly turned down developers and other houses of worship who do not meet the ordinance requirements. Why should this situation be any different? The town must take a stand now.
So, how does a town protect itself from legal actions if it actually enforces code? Well, first of all, you enforce code unilaterally and if ordinances need modifications or don’t make sense, you change them (and obviously consider grandfather clauses). The next line of defense is getting liability insurance, which many towns carry. Lastly, of course, hiring legal council if it is the case that the town is sued. Fortunately, TML can provide legal defense as they draw from a wealth of experience to protect the town from frivolous lawsuits. It is our understanding that St. Paul has access to all of these resources currently.
OK, so that protects you from any old Joe who wants to opens up another storage facility in St. Paul but got denied because he didn’t want to build a fence. What about when “Places of Worship” come into play? This is when people really start allowing fear to take precedence over their duty. The First Amendment gives a lot of leeway to churches and towns can’t even deny them in a residential area. Furthermore, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) severely limits how much the town can enforce ordinances on places of worship. However, in the case of the ICW, this is a health and safety issue, which can override RLUIPA. These issues have been documented and demonstrated many times over so the town has a strong legal foothold. Additionally, our town staff should be talking to other towns to get advice on how they deal with these types of concerns as well as seeking alternative legal advice if the current advice flies in the face of citizen needs. It is the responsibility of our town government to keep our residents safe.
“I want to be sued”, said nobody ever. Litigation takes time and money and should be avoided when possible, of course. But, we should not be so paralyzed by the fear of getting sued that we remain action-less at the expense of our residents. The town has the tools to handle litigation and should stand strong on that backing in order to protect its citizens.
What can be done to fix this? Complain to council members, take pictures and video any of the traffic concerns you observe. The more evidence we can feed the town about the traffic, the stronger legal standing they will have. As always, feel free to email photos/videos to stpaulpost@gmail.com as well and we will compile videos demonstrating the situation.
If you are not satisfied with the way many of our elected officials are choosing to handle this issue please make your voices heard. St. Paul desperately needs a change in leadership. On May 4th, Kent Swaner and Justin Graham would appreciate your vote at town hall. Also, please email us if you would like a yard sign or if you are interested in a campaign shirt.
Image generated by Bing Image Creator
Email: stpaulpost@gmail.com
This is a political advertisement authorized by Justin Graham