church serving homeless will hurt shopping center business? FWD

Tom Boland (
Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT)

FWD article from The Last Word (tm) a/k/a NaziWatch
            Volume 7 - Number 68 (161th issue) Wednesday, April 15, 1998

Bathroom Bandit, editor-in-chief
FM 95.7
New American Embassy, Bellevue, Ky.


The city of Highland Heights is unlikely to survive the 20th century if
the corruption that is stinking up city hall is allowed to continue.
        Just last week, city hall gave itself the power to condemn an
entire residential neighborhood near the infamous U.S. 27/I-471 junction
and use--you guessed it!--"eminent domain" to seize homes to be torn down
to make way for private enterprises such as a fancy restaurant and hotel
catering to out-of-town visitors. Three council members voted for the
proposal, and 3 voted against it, with the mayor breaking the tie,
declaring that most residents of Highland Heights favor the development.
        Oh yeah? If everyone wants their house to be bulldozed so badly,
how come only one resident spoke in favor of it at that planning and
zoning meeting while dozens were lashing out against it ("A Poorly
Developed Development Plan", Last Word, 5/27/96)?
        We think we can explain. Surely, there must be some people at city
hall who are accepting some generous, uh, contributions, shall we say,
from developers who want to plow down that neighborhood for their
restaurant and hotel.
        In addition to this apparent bribery, several other examples of
crookedness in Highland Heights city government have been sighted in
recent months.
        You know that completely vacant shopping center that blights
downtown Highland Heights? Not long ago, a small church decided to move
into the shopping center, renting one of the many boarded up storefronts.
But it didn't take long for city hall to eep that it was an "illegal
church" because the shopping center was zoned for commercial purposes
        Does it not violate the religious freedom provision of the First
Amendment to order the closure of a church?
        The reason the city was so enraged by the church is that they were
afraid it would draw poor and homeless folks seeking assistance and make
the neighborhood "unattractive for development". Now wouldn't that just be
the end of the world?
        Granted, many churches are only interested in money and power, but
those churches are able to afford their own buildings rather than having
to rent space in a run-down shopping center.
        Since the shopping center is zoned for commercial purposes, can't
the developers of the new fancy-pants hotel and restaurant put them there
instead of wrecking a residential nabe?
        And isn't an empty shopping center more of a blight on the
community than needy people?
        When the city annexed some rural areas that included trailer
residences, city hall decreed that the trailers had to go, because an
ordinance forbids trailers within city limits. Why, then, was this land
annexed? To give the city something to bitch about?
        This is exactly like sticking huge of wads of gum on the lenses of
your glasses and then having the nerve to complain that you can't see.
What did you think was going to happen?
        It's time for people in city government to start acting like
adults rather than simpering toddlers.


ARCHIVES  <>  read posts to HPN
TO JOIN  <> or email Tom <>