General Discussion

eridani

(51,907 posts) Sat Oct 17, 2015, 12:57 AM Oct 2015

Church opposes DC's proposed bike lane because ‘rights of religious freedom’

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/15/1432888/-Church-opposes-DC-s-proposed-bike-lane-because-rights-of-religious-freedom

As Washington, DC officials consider adding a bike lane, the United House of Prayer is firmly opposing it in the name of freedom:

The District government is going through the rather municipally boring process of determining where to build a bike lane on the east side of downtown.

And one church has given a charged response to some proposals, saying that a bike lane near its property would infringe upon “its constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws.”

Are they serious? Yes. Yes, they are.

The parking loss would place an unconstitutionally undue burden on people who want to pray, the church argues, noting that other churches already have had to flee to the suburbs because of similarly onerous parking restrictions. The church says that DDOT lets cars park diagonally on the street during busy times, which would be seemingly impossible if a protected bike lane were on the street.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Church opposes DC's proposed bike lane because ‘rights of religious freedom’ (Original Post) eridani Oct 2015 OP

Nitwits nt Melurkyoulongtime Oct 2015 #1

To explain to non-Washingtonians Recursion Oct 2015 #2

Do other entities get to park diagonally or double-park on the streets when petronius Oct 2015 #3

Sure. Parking rules are changed for Eastern Market, for Food Trucks, for football games... Recursion Oct 2015 #4

Well, in that case I can't really fault the churches for fighting it (although petronius Oct 2015 #5

Right: I agree that the "Free exercise" argument is over-the-top Recursion Oct 2015 #6

Melurkyoulongtime

(136 posts)

1. Nitwits nt

Reply to eridani (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:23 AM

Oct 2015

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

2. To explain to non-Washingtonians

Reply to eridani (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:34 AM

Oct 2015

Churches in DC (they are legion, and some of them are incredibly beautiful; there's a great photoessay called "the churches of 16th street" you might want to look at if you like American architecture) never have parking lots. Furthermore, various Great Migrations and White Flights (and DC was an absolute epicenter of both) have meant that parishioners often live very far away from their churches (there are still "black" churches in Georgetown and "white" churches in Anacostia). A result of this is that either de jure or de facto, DC churches are allowed double-parking before noon on Sundays, because that's literally the only way to deal with the parking needs.

This actually isn't the first or even the second DC church to try to block a bike lane's addition, but this is probably the "biggest" church to do so (UHP actually bucks the racial trend of DC churches in being founded in 1919 as a racially integrated Apostolic church).

The diagrams in the article make it a littler clearer: this isn't simply about a bike lane in an otherwise untouched street, but about actually narrowing the automobile right-of-way on both 5th and 6th streets NW.

The argument is a bit maudlin, but then again that's a lawyer's job.

petronius

(26,602 posts)

3. Do other entities get to park diagonally or double-park on the streets when

Reply to Recursion (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:53 AM

Oct 2015

they hold big events as a matter of course? If not, it would seem like the churches are getting a special privilege by virtue of being religious institutions...

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

4. Sure. Parking rules are changed for Eastern Market, for Food Trucks, for football games...

Reply to petronius (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:00 AM

Oct 2015

for the Barnum & Bailey Circus's elephant parade. Living in a city is about compromise.

The churches were, for a time, just about the only functioning institutions in places like Columbia Heights or Shaw, so the Council has a pressure to give them a lot of leeway.

petronius

(26,602 posts)

5. Well, in that case I can't really fault the churches for fighting it (although

Reply to Recursion (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:11 AM

Oct 2015

I don't buy the religious freedom argument). I suppose all those other groups would be equally up-in-arms if their parking (or other traffic-disrupting) privileges were threatened....

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

6. Right: I agree that the "Free exercise" argument is over-the-top

Reply to petronius (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:58 AM

Oct 2015

But like I said the lawyers are paid to throw everything against they wall they can and see what sticks.

The larger question of what to do with a DC that has a more vital urban core than it has ever had before is ongoing, and nothing about this suit will solve it...

Reply to this discussion