ASWAN Main page

Bound To Happen
In Richmond Virginia

ASWAN E-Mail City Council
2001 Homeless Petition
Founding Advisers
Founding Members
ASWAN leadership
ASWAN Advisers
ASWAN by-laws
ASWAN links

From: Kent Willis (Director- ACLU)

I am writing to you know that the proposed changes to the Richmond zoning ordinance, which you are scheduled to address at your meeting on July 21, 1997 are not only an affront to the poor of our city but also a violation of the equal protection and religious freedom clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Under Richmond's existing zoning ordinance, homeless shelters and other providers of charitable services may locate in the downtown area by-right. Under the proposed changes, shelters, adult care residences, group homes, lodging houses, and social service delivery uses would be required to first obtain a conditional use permit. Social service delivery is defined as providing services -- to a specific client group for free or for greatly reduced compensation.

The conditional use permit requirements are burdensome. The application fee is $1,000, plus $100 per acre of use. In the business district, the service facility cannot be situated within 500 feet of another adult care residence, group home, lodging house, shelter, or social service delivery use. To qualify for the conditional use permit, the onus is on the applicant to prove that the new use will not substantially diminish property values, cause undue traffic congestion, burden public services and facilities, or have a "negative cumulative impact" in conjunction with other conditional use permits.

After conducting our own legal research and seeking the advice of a national organization whose main purpose is to advise local groups on laws affecting poor and homeless persons, the ACLU believes that, once implemented, the proposed ordinance would be vulnerable to a legal challenge.

Before new federal laws gave special status to disabled individuals, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an requiring mentally retarded persons to obtain a special use permit in order to establish a group home. The Court said that the ordinance rested on an irrational prejudice against mentally retarded persons and, therefore, violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Under the proposed amendments to the Richmond zoning ordinance, organizations that provide low cost or free services to specific client groups are subjected to the onerous conditional use requirements, whereas organizations that provide low cost or free services to specific client groups are subjected to the providing the same services, but at market price, are not. Surely this ordinance is based on an irrational prejudice against poor and homeless persons who must use these special services to survive.

Churches that intend to feed more than 30 persons at a time will also be required to pay an application fee of $1,000 and obtain a conditional use permit. Although the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was unconstitutional, a substantial body of law still exists supporting the constitutional right of exercise clause of the First Amendment. It is almost inconceivable that the City of Richmond is seriously considering an ordinance that would penalize churches for offering assistance to those in need.

By placing these extraordinary burdens on providers of services to the homeless, the proposed amendments may also violate the Fair Housing Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). It is certain that Richmond's homeless population is disproportionately disabled or perceived to be disabled by the public. In either case, they are protected by fair housing laws and the ADA, from governmental acts that have the effect of discriminating against them. The proposed amendments clearly have the effect of making it more difficult to provide shelter and other services to the homeless and therefore may very well violate these two laws.

The City of Richmond will not solve any of its myriad problems by attempting to expel poor and homeless persons from its midst. Furthermore, in the process of trying to accomplish this shameful goal, it may also be violating two of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution -- the right to equal protection under the law and the right to freely practice religion without government interference.

I urge you not to approve these proposed amendments to the Richmond zoning law.

A Society Without A Name, For People Without A Home

Vol.1 No.10 Aswan Newscut "Round 4" July 25, 1997

ASWAN

CITY ATTEMPTS TO CAST
HOMELESS OUT OF DOWNTOWN
AND RESTRICT CHURCHES
FROM FEEDING THE HOMELESS

WE NEED YOU AT CITY HALL MONDAY 6 PM JULY 28
TO HELP SAVE THE LAST FEASIBLE BY-RIGHT ZONE
FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS AND TO OPPOSE
RESTRICTING CHURCH MEALS FOR THE HOMELESS

ASWAN needs a homeless Michael Jordan, churches and its members to stand up for their rights, service providers assisting the homeless, compassionate Richmonders, and a fat lady that can't sing to do another problem solver. City Manager Robert C. Bobb originally introduced proposed zoning ordinances that would eliminate the last feasible by-right zone for homeless shelters, and apply restriction on churches that feed the homeless by forcing them to pay the city a $1,000 application fee to seek City Council approval for a conditional use permit to feed more than 30 homeless people per week. Many of the churches' financial resources have come from church tithes. The city would have the capability to deny churches their rights in feeding the homeless on one hand while taking $1,000 of church tithes with the other hand. So, who introduced these prejudice zoning ordinances this time, none other than the Deputy City Manager Dr. Musgrove (chairman of the Homeless Task Force). What's going on here! He's supposed to be a chairperson of a committee that is concentrating their efforts in aiding the homeless.

ROUND 1:

The master's plan builders came in swinging at the homeless, the city mailed Rev. Eddie Perry, an ASWAN advisory member, April 28 as the date of City Council voting on the proposed zoning ordinances and advertised in the newspaper that the same public hearing would be heard and voted on April 14. Due to this error the city waved a white flag and agreed to postpone the hearing. ASWAN members had attended all 1996-97 hearings on related zoning issues and was unaware that restrictions on churches were to cover most zones of the Richmond area. Had the April 14th hearing not been postponed, City Council would have voted on the church feeding restrictions without ASWAN recognition that nearly all the churches were to be affected.

ROUND 2:

ASWAN filed suit against the city May 16, 1997 based on the city not following proper procedures. On May 19, 1997 the day of the hearing, ASWAN legal adviser Henry McLaughlin (fighting tooth and nail) came through for the homeless. Circuit Court Judge Markow approved ASWAN's request of an emergency injunction (first time in Virginia history a judge intervened on a zoning ordinances before it became law) on grounds that the City Council had not referred the zoning ordinances. He ordered Richmond Planning Commission not to vote on the related zoning proposals, just one hour before that vote were to take place.

ROUND 3:

The city came in putting up a better fight, ASWAN didn't win another emergency injunction, but the judge did agree to allow ASWAN to amend its pleading, and gave the city 21 days to respond. During the next City Council Meeting, the city bit a chunk off the homeless's ear. ASWAN's Co-Convener Matthew Hilgeford attempted to address City Council in regards to the related zoning ordinances, Mayor Chavis ruled him out of order and refused ASWAN to speak on the matter, even though its states in City Council's own rules of procedure that the public has a right to speak on any action item including striking, referring, continuing. City Council had violated their own rules.

At the next City Council meeting there was an introduction of a resolution to strike the related part of their rules and placed the proposal in a non-controversial agenda as if the public supports not having an input on serious issues that concerns them during striking, referring, or continuing. When the vote had taken place on this issue Mayor Chavis indicated support for the non-public input proposal because the public might turn City Council into a circus, he also speculated that ASWAN had attempted to speak on the continuing of the zoning ordinances in face of a technicality that City Council hasn't been using the rule. The mayor lashed out at ASWAN and City Council penalized the entire public by denying their right of input on procedures motions. The real truth is that the public has never abused this rule, the surrounding counties (Henrico and Chesterfield) and other cities allow its citizens this right.

As for the technicality part, ASWAN had obtained an injunction against the city based on the city not following proper procedures. Matthew Hilgeford attempted to speak on the continuation of the proposed zoning ordinances which hadn't (at that time) been referred by City Council to the planning Commission and the seriousness of a adverse effect the proposed zoning ordinances could have on the city and homeless people by passing laws which would limit Richmonders and churches their rights in aiding the homeless. When he started to speak, he did not know that City Council had been breaking its own rules in disallowing public input during procedural motions.

I heard that a City Council member mentioned that the proposed zoning ordinances are a done deal. Same statement was made awhile back about the board of the Daily Planet voting on the move to 17th Street. On May 29, the board of the Daily Planet voted 15 to 0 not to move to 17th Street, but to stay in the downtown area.

For tons of free resources & just plain good reading, visit John Felts personal page that includes his latest web site, pages, published articles, and essays.
http://www16.brinkster.com/6499