Moving on from the Victory mosque, wine growers in California are protesting church expansion...


SoCal winemakers want to block church expansion
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gwhiBHplCJmXZ90yz5lo3RMA44aAD9ICQQC86)
By JACOB ADELMAN (AP) – 3 days ago

TEMECULA, Calif. — After the Mediterranean climate and sandy soil, winemaker Ray Falkner said his greatest asset is the view of rolling vine-covered hills from the top of his property in Southern California.

Confident the Temecula Valley wine-grape region's strict zoning limits would protect that view, he built a multimillion dollar banquet hall with floor-to-ceiling windows peering across a gorge to a nearby vineyard. Now he's worried that vantage could be ruined by a Christian congregation's request to change the region's zoning so it can build on part of the vineyard.

Falkner's property has become the front line of a bitter divide between churches and growers in Temecula's wine country, where vintners fear a push to allow more houses of worship would hurt views, limit wine sales and cause conflicts between grape growers and congregations.

"We are in an economic development zone specifically targeted with the mission of being able to enhance the development of new wineries and the growth of existing wineries," Falkner said. "How does a church help that mission?"

Supporters of the Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship's expansion plans said they have nothing against the wineries, but Riverside County's zoning rules violate a 2000 federal law prohibiting governments from discriminating against religious institutions.

"Morally, constitutionally, it's just wrong. It's just flat-out un-American to say you just can't build a church," said Clark Van Wick, pastor of Calvary Chapel.

But I thought no one ever objected to the building of a church?

Confident the Temecula Valley wine-grape region's strict zoning limits would protect that view, he built a multimillion dollar banquet hall with floor-to-ceiling windows
Hello Steve:

Like the article said, he's protecting his VIEW rather than attacking Christians or their church. I understand, though... You think I'M attacking Christians when I mention separation of church and state...

Excon

Like the article said, he's protecting his VIEW rather than attacking Christians or their church.

So that's all the opponents of the victory mosque need to do, is say they're protecting their view and all will be well. Cool.


I understand, though... You think I'M attacking Christians when I mention separation of church and state...

I knew you didn't understand nearly as much as you'd like us to believe. Statements like that just keep proving me right.

So that's all the opponents of the victory mosque need to do, is say they're protecting their view and all will be well. Cool.Hello again, Steve:

No. All the winemaker and the Imam have to do, is protect their rights under existing zoning laws. That's what THIS controversy is about. It has NOTHING to do with mosque's or church's or even views.

The only difference is that the zoning law in NY is NOT being challenged..

excon

PS> In the mosque thread, you argued that church's just can't be plunked down WHEREVER they wanted... NOW you think they can??

In the mosque thread, you argued that church's just can't be plunked down WHEREVER they wanted... NOW you think they can????

Dude, the longer you base your arguments on assumptions the sillier you look. I've taken no position on the Temecula controversy, but I would suggest if you're in the area to visit the Ponte (http://www.temeculawines.org/wineries-vineyards/wineries/ponte-family-estate-winery.php) winery. I'd want to protect that view also.

What a non-issue.
The neo-cons will dramatize anything.

Moving on from the Victory mosque, wine growers in California are protesting church expansion...
Dude, the longer you base your arguments on assumptions the sillier you look. I've taken no position on the Temecula controversy, Hello again, Steve:

Then I'm left to assume the only reason you posted it, was to inform me that people object to government changing the rules in the middle of the game... Duh!

However, I don't think THAT would be worthy of a post, UNLESS you had something else to say. Yes, I ASSUMED what that might be... If I'm wrong, would you tell me WHAT point you were trying to make??

There are THREE issues here. (1) Can a zoning board limit the parameters of a BUILDING in its district? (2) Can a zoning board limit the parameters of a building in its district IF the building is a church? (3) Can a zoning board RESTRICT church's from being built in its district no matter how their built?

excon

The intrusionary RLUIPA rears it's ugly head again . It is an unconstitional violation of the equal protection clause because it grants special zoning exceptions for religious institutions that secular landowners do not have.

What a non-issue.
The neo-cons will dramatize anything.

LOL, you're the only drama queen here.

LOL, you're the only drama queen here.
Example?

Hello again, Steve:

Then I'm left to assume the only reason you posted it, was to inform me that people object to government changing the rules in the middle of the game... Duh!

However, I don't think THAT would be worthy of a post, UNLESS you had something else to say. Yes, I ASSUMED what that might be.... If I'm wrong, would you tell me WHAT point you were trying to make???

There are THREE issues here. (1) Can a zoning board limit the parameters of a BUILDING in its district? (2) Can a zoning board limit the parameters of a building in its district IF the building is a church? (3) Can a zoning board RESTRICT church's from being built in its district no matter how their built?

excon

The reasons I posted it are a), it was in my paper today making it a current event and b), to prove to you people do object to church buildings going up. And NK, there is no drama involved.

I did find your response amusing though, that "he's protecting his VIEW." That's a valid reason in your book, but trying to work out a compromise that wouldn't offend the sensitivities of people affected by 3000 Americans being killed in a terrorist attack is an outrage.

My opinion is I'm against both and believe a compromise can be reached. I don't want a victory mosque built near ground zero any more than I want the view spoiled by a mega church the next time I visit Temecula. So what, I'm entitled to my opinion without being labeled a hypocrite or a bigot... or worse. Such knee-jerk reactions are completely uncalled for, offensive and certainly not helpful.

Example?

This (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/another-building-controversy-510711.html#post2537774) post, noting drama that isn't there.

This (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/another-building-controversy-510711.html#post2537774) post, noting drama that isn't there.You mean the drama you are creating around a winery that is trying to preserve their view which affects their business and property value?

So me mentioning that you are creating drama is considered being a drama queen in your eyes? Well there certainly is a queen in this thread. LOL!

NK, try being relevant for a change.

Maybe the devil put evil in the winery's heart and Jesus will save him.