Mr. Jim Morse referred as Mayor of West Avenue Improvement Association by the Richmond Times-Dispatch. One might, however, call him, "Mayor Morse of Richie Rich(monders)."

In reference to the controversy, new ordinances considered less restrictive are being proposed by City Manager Robert C. Bobb. ASWAN considers that one of the proposals is a gross violation of the Restoration of the Religious Freedom Act. Under the proposal, area churches wanting to feed more than 30 homeless persons per week in most zones throughout the city would be required to purchase a Conditional Use Permit. The permit, which costs $1,000 has to be approved by City Council. Let's say, for example, that a church does not have the Conditional Use Permit, but gives out the 31st peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich to a hungry child of a homeless mother who just got the 30th sandwich. That would be illegal, so Bobb's proposal says. Or is it? I bet, no one would deny that feeding this child is a good Samaritan act. But Bobb's proposal does not see it that way.

ASWAN feels that the proposed ordinances interfere with something as personal and private as religious practice, and that it violates the constitutional principle of separation between churches and the state. The zones which churches will be affected are as follow: R-1, R-5, R-6, R-53, R-73, RO-2, RO-3, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-5, M-1, M-2, I (zone), HO District, and the B-4 that has added restrictions but is less profound.

The current ordinances is even more restrictive, was often not enforced, and has been temporarily stayed by a federal court in the Stuart Circle Parish case. The current law should have been legally challenged a long time ago. Many Richmond citizens had previously thought that the law was to monitor CARITAS's churches. The city should not be able to enforce laws of "Who" and "How many" people churches assist.

What caused this current reaction to penalize churches for feeding the homeless? In July of 1996, West Avenue Improvement Association led by "Mayor Morse" complained to the city that a homeless person, who had just been fed at Stuart Circle church, urinated in the alley of a association member's property. The action taken by the zoning administration based upon this complaint stopped the church from feeding homeless people. One might question the validity of this complaint. How did "Mayor Morse's" association know it was a male homeless person and that this person came from that church? Did "Mayor Morse" or his associates follow him as he left the church? More than likely, the alleged homeless person never came from that church and that action was taken based on information that has never been investigated or verified.

Speaking on behalf of Stuart Circle Parish, the First English Lutheran Church filed a federal suit against the city after being forced not to feed the poor. The church felts that the new restriction was a violation of its right to practice its religion of helping disadvantaged people in the community. During the fall 1996 hearing, a motion which was introduced by the church to allow them to feed the poor while the judge was hearing the case, was refuted by the city attorney. But the judge, indicating that the city may have violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, agreed to allow the church to continue feeding until and during the federal trial, which is yet to be announced. The judge's decision exceeded the church's expectations. The church initially requested to give out food for 10 days following the fall hearing last year, was given more than six months to carry out its feeding mission.

The federal judge had asked Zoning Commissioner Mr. Benbow, "If there were any feeding restrictions for people who weren't homeless? The response was "No." What this implies is that the purpose of the 1991 R-6 zoning ordinance is to discriminate against the poor and it went as far as to stop a church from feeding hungry men, women, and children.