John Felts Personal Page
The Restrictive Six
There is a zone that covers many sections throughout the City of Richmond Virginia where
prejudiced policies are harming the poor. This zone is called R-6. It could be nicknamed
"Restrictive Six." The R-6 zoning law, enacted in 1991, was to regulate a new homeless
program that shelters and feeds homeless people in Richmond Virginia churches. This program,
called CARITAS would house and feed 30 homeless individuals over a seven-day period in one
church, then another church would take the housing and feeding over for seven days and so
on. This cycle would last from October through March the following year.
Originally, this law was not meant to apply to non-CARITAS churches and other religious
organizations providing meals to homeless individuals. Our city government didn't enforce
the 1991 regulations on other non-CARITAS churches for five years. Why? Did city officials
perhaps know that the restrictions were morally wrong? When someone complains that the
regulations are not being enforced, the city normally takes a position to either enforce the
regulations or abolish them.
This issue has become a major controversy in recent months. Jim Morse, leader of the West
Avenue Improvement Association, is one of those in favor of restricting churches from
feeding the homeless. In his April 12, 1997 article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch called,
"Toward Sensible Solution To City's Feeding Problem," he wrote:
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 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.
In Henry Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience" which is based upon an American law that he
strongly opposed (slavery) he mentioned, "The character inherent in the American people has
done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government
had not sometimes go in its way." Near the end of his essay, Thoreau speaks of no purer
sources of truth than the Bible and the Constitution. In light of the feeding restriction,
ASWAN feels it is appropriate to recall this biblical passage: Isaiah 10:1 "Woe unto them
that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed: To
turn aside the needy from judgement, and to take away the right from the poor of my people."
The city government should be a responsible governing body that has the ability to make fair
laws toward fulfilling one needs while not depriving others of their right to assist those
in need. The American Constitution is based on the protection of fundamental rights of the
people, and on the notion that the common good would prevail. THEREFORE, THE "RESTRICTIVE
SEX" SHOULD NOT PREVAIL.
"The Stuart Circle Parish believes its Sunday feeding program is primarily a
ministry and, as such, is free from city ordinances. The city believes the ordinances apply
to the churches. Ultimately, the courts will decide. Neighborhoods are watching with
apprehension. Although the focus has been on the feeding of the homeless in residential
neighborhoods, there is much more at stake in these deliberations.
First of all, what
religion will be involved in determining ministries? After the recent San Diego tragedy,
theologians have made it clear that there are between 1,600 and 2,000 religions in the
United States, and that half of those are classified as non-mainstream missions will be
involved in establishing ministries. And what type of missions will be involved? Will some
mission involve half-way houses for pedophiles? Will there be even more bizarre missions
concocted by religious cults?"