TOMS RIVER – A move to acquire Christ Episcopal Church – through purchase or eminent domain – has caused a backlash among members of the public.
Mayor Daniel Rodrick told The Toms River Times that the purchase of the church has been in the works for some time, part of a broader waterfront recreation plan. This includes open access, public areas and other ways for people to enjoy the scenery.
“It’s been over a year in the making,” he said.
The church property is the most controversial piece that is in the public’s eye. He also wants to buy a few smaller parcels that would be turned into municipal docks. Boaters would be able to dock and visit restaurants and shops downtown.
“There is no playground anywhere between St. Joe’s and Washington Street,” he said, in reference to Saint Joseph’s church on Hooper Avenue.
A park built on the church’s property “would serve 20,000 households and roughly a thousand or two thousand children who are playground age,” he said.
The town would negotiate in good faith to purchase the property, he said.
The ordinance that names all of the properties mentions either purchase or eminent domain.
Rev. Lisa A. Hoffman of Christ Episcopal Church posted on social media that she found out about this by a parishioner, not by any official communication from the town. She found out about it the night before the Township Council meeting where the first vote was to take place.
“The Christ Church property is not for sale nor has this even been a consideration. All church properties are owned by the Diocese and held in trust by the congregations. No real estate transactions of any kind can take place without the consent of the Standing Committee of the Diocese and the Bishop. Approvals are needed at every step of the way. So, we are not alone in this fight,” she wrote.
Church leaders have not made comments to local media. Hoffman told the Episcopal News Service that the 160-year-old Christ Church has more than 150 people in Sunday services. The church also hosts more than 20 support groups, a food pantry, weekly clothing distribution, and other services. The Ocean Christian Community rents an older church building on the property.
According to the Episcopal News Service, a parish holds its property in trust for the diocese and The Episcopal Church.
Homeless Shelter
The church is currently applying to the town to host a 17-bed overnight homeless shelter on the property. Critics of Rodrick have said that the mayor wants to take the property in retaliation of the church wanting the shelter.
Earlier this year, Rodrick sent a mailer to residents saying he is “deeply concerned for the safety of our community” because of homeless people downtown. He described them as “constant gangs of men who are mentally ill, intoxicated or high on drugs, causing disturbances.”
He blamed the county government for their new warming center, saying that this has brought in homeless from all over the state – and even from other states. He also said that the JBJ Soul Kitchen pop-up near the downtown library is drawing homeless to the area.
County Commissioner Robert Arace responded with his own letter to residents stating that Rodrick’s letter was full of false claims and “fear-mongering.”
The law firm Novins York Jacobus & Dooley has been representing Christ Episcopal Church in their attempt to open a shelter. Attorney Michael B. York wrote a letter from his law firm to the town stating that all testimony has been concluded for the shelter and the board is in the process of hearing public testimony which is expected to continue on May 22. They expect a vote at that time.
Councilmen David Ciccozzi, James Quinlisk, and Thomas Nivison voted against it. (Toms River Township)
The Zoning Board of Adjustment is a land use board that oversees how property can be used in town. The church is asking for permission to open the shelter before the zoning board because it would mean a different use than what it is currently doing.
The letter also noted that the mayor has been issuing public statements in opposition of the shelter.
There are many cases where a property owner sued a town because the land use board members were found to have opinions regarding a case based on something outside of the testimony given.
“While we have had less than 24 hours’ notice of the mayor’s proposed taking, even a cursory review of the relevant case law would indicate that the Township is in a perilous position,” the letter states.
It cites case law Tennessee Gas Transmission Co. v. Hirschfield, 39 N.J. Super. 286: “However, the decision to condemn shall not be enforced where there has been a showing of improper motives, bad faith, or some other consideration amounting to a manifest abuse of the power of eminent domain.”
“It is clear and obvious that the Township and Mayor Rodrick are acting in bad faith and have ulterior motives. Clearly, they are not even trying to hide their actions. This attempt to use eminent domain as an excuse to obtain property is not disguised in this instance. Adding a property as a last-minute Council agenda item is clear and obvious bad faith.
“Should the Township continue down this path, we will have no choice but to seek all remedies at law and equity. Quite obviously, this will include a Section 1983 claim against all individual members of the Town Council and all members of the Township staff who knowingly participated in this bad faith action,” he wrote.
First Vote
The Township Council voted to introduce the ordinance that would begin negotiations or use eminent domain. An ordinance has to be heard twice. The second reading is expected to be at the May 28 council meeting at 4 p.m. at town hall. An ordinance goes into effect 20 days after it passes on second reading.
The council is all Republican, but two camps oppose each other on controversial matters. The majority – Council President Justin Lamb, and council members Craig Coleman, Lynn O’Toole, and William Byrne – voted to introduce the ordinance to buy or otherwise take possession of the church and the waterfront properties. Councilmen David Ciccozzi, James Quinlisk, and Thomas Nivison voted against it.
It was a very contentious meeting. Early on, Nivison angrily asked the council members voting to take the church “Do you hate homeless? Do you hate God? Do you hate Christ?”
At one point Ciccozzi recited the Lord’s Prayer.
Quinlisk was concerned that this would open the town up to an RLUIPA lawsuit or investigation.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act protects houses of worship from politicians who zone an area specifically to keep them out. A few years ago, Toms River settled costly allegations brought about by the federal government, accusing the town of working against allowing certain houses of worship.
When the meeting was open to the public, most people spoke on the church issue.
Toms River resident Catherine Galioto asked how this decision was made. She suggested that there should be a recreation subcommittee to advise elected officials on recreation matters.
Silverton resident Greg Andrus said he used to be homeless when he was battling alcoholism. “It was a church that took me in. That’s who showed me there was a God who loved me,” he said. “Now, I’m a married father of two and a homeowner.”
“When you go after a church of faith, you are losing the faith of the people,” he said.
The long-time advocate for homeless asked the politicians to come to the table to work together to address the problem rather than “demonizing” those in need.
“You cannot demonize a church when they’re doing the work of the Lord,” resident Angie Felton said. “I don’t know whether you believe, but when you start messing with His children who are in need, you’re asking for trouble.”
One young man described his four years attending High School South. Students are allowed to go downtown for lunch. He said he was never harassed by homeless.
He said it didn’t make sense to worry about a shelter for homeless when the county jail is right next door to the high school.
Mayor Daniel Rodrick and Business Administrator Jonathan Salonis (Photo by Stephanie Faughnan)
He also mentioned how Attorney General Pam Bondi is fighting anti-Christian bias after an executive order from President Trump. He said that shutting down a church could be considered anti-Christian bias.
One woman who said she used to be homeless said that most homeless don’t want to bother anybody. They only want to be left alone.
She took offense at characterizing homeless people as drug addicts. She said she had substance abuse disorder, which affects all walks of life. “I’ve partied with a lot of surgeons over the years.”
Another who had experienced homelessness said that churches are one of the only places homeless people feel safe.
One man said he has been fighting for housing for two years, and clean for a year. He’s the caretaker of a 78-year-old woman who can’t get help from the county.
“I struggle every day to keep my sobriety” because he’s constantly being labelled an addict and a criminal.
The ordinance noted that the town would acquire the church either by purchase or eminent domain, and listed 415 Washington Street (Block 687, Lot 16), 89 Water Street (Block 669, Lot 38), 93 East Water Street (Block 669, Lot 52), 95 East Water Street (Block 669, Lot 37.01), 97 East Water Street (Block 669, Lot 36.01), And 99 East Water Street (Block 669, Lot 35.01). 415 Washington is the church. The East Water Street addresses are not connected to the church property.
Protests Planned
Andrus and Just Believe, a group that helps homeless in the area, are hosting a “Voices For The Voiceless” rally at 6:30 p.m. on May 17 in front of the Toms River library. There will be guest speakers and live music.
A group of residents who have held two petition drives to recall ordinances passed by the current administration have vowed to do so again if the ordinance passes on second reading.
Stephanie Faughnan contributed to this story.
The post Public Outcry Over Toms River Wanting To Acquire Church appeared first on Jersey Shore Online.
