07-19-2008, 07:27 PM
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_di...S&id=1131077339
Evangelistic US Supreme Court Nominee Opposed Hindu Temple Construction
Posted November 3, 2005
BY ROB JENNINGS
DAILY RECORD
11/3/2005
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., a federal appeals judge, sided in 2001 with North Bergen against the same Hindu temple that now wants to build in Parsippany.
Alito wrote a dissenting opinion when the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, denied the North Bergen Board Of Adjustment's appeal of a district court ruling favoring BAPS Northeast.
"Because I believe that the board of adjustment's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary and capricious, I would reverse the decision of the district court," Alito wrote in a dissent that hinged mostly on technical details.
Alito's dissent said that "such boards possess special knowledge of local conditions and must be accorded wide latitude in the exercise of their discretion."
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the 3rd Circuit ruling, clearing the way for the North Bergen temple to be built in an industrial zone.
Parsippany's board of adjustment, which is reviewing BAPS'plan to build a temple in an industrial park, wasn't told about the previous legal battle in North Bergen, board Chairman Robert Iracane said on Wednesday.
"I was never aware that there was any parallel situation," Iracane said.
BAPS Northeast started with temples in Edison and in Flushing, N.Y., before acquiring a onetime restaurant/discothèque in North Bergen in 1998 that was mired in bankruptcy, said former temple attorney Steven R. Tombalakian.
North Bergen and Clifton were the third and fourth BAPS temple sites, Tombalakian said. Parsippany would be the fifth.
BAPS required a use variance to build in North Bergen because the site was in an industrial zone -- sparking a controversy similar to the ongoing debate in Parsippany.
In Parsippany, BAPS wants to transform the two-story, 44,313-square-foot Team Products International Building at 3 Entin Road into an assembly hall with room for 636 people.
At the first two public hearings, residents of the nearby Lake Parsippany neighborhood raised concerns about congestion, parking, and even the smell of food being cooked at the site.
Food odor apparently wasn't an issue in North Bergen. Even so, the North Bergen zoning board rejected BAPS' application in 1999, citing traffic and occupancy objections and rejecting the temple's final offer to reduce its seating capacity from 578 to 505.
BAPS appealed the denial to bankruptcy court because of the property's status. The bankruptcy court overturned the denial, and during a second round of hearings, the zoning board insisted that BAPS hire off-duty police officers as a condition of approval.
BAPS appealed the condition and the bankruptcy court again took the board of adjustment to task -- this time, ordering that the variance be granted without the police requirement.
After a district court rejected North Bergen's appeal, the case landed before Alito and the 3rd Circuit. Out of the three judges, only Alito sided with North Bergen.
"Oddly enough, with all the talk that religious zealots love this choice ... (Alito) gave a lot more deference to the municipal fact-finding than I would have," said Tombalakian, part of the BAPS legal team in that case.
It is difficult to derive a wide-ranging assessment of Alito's legal philosophy -- already the subject of a nationwide debate -- based on his opinion in the BAPS case because his dissent hinged largely on procedural matters.
Alito, for example, didn't say whether he agreed with the police requirement -- only that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction in that aspect of the case.
Alito, though, did apply a different standard than Judge Max Rosenn, who wrote the majority opinion, in assessing North Bergen's actions.
Alito argued that New Jersey law requires zoning boards to reject a variance if approval would cause a public detriment or undermine local ordinances.
Rosenn, though, agreed with previous findings that the zoning board failed to incorporate a "balancing test" of positive and negative considerations.
"The parties here agree that the proposed temple constitutes an 'inherently beneficial' use of the subject property," Rosenn wrote.
Alito countered that the North Bergen zoning board "reasonably found that, even with the occupancy limit ... the proposed BAPS temple would cause a substantial detriment to the public good with respect to parking and traffic."
The majority opinion noted that the nightclub had been granted a variance on the same property. Alito's opinion noted that traffic and parking concerns for a house of worship would be different because a nightclub would only draw patrons at night, when other traffic is light.
"I would view this case quite differently if there were any suggestion that the (zoning board) harbored any bias towards BAPS or its members, but I am aware of no such evidence," Alito's dissent also said.
Gerald J. Monahan, attorney for North Bergen in the 2001 case, could not be reached on Wednesday.
Afterward, North Bergen launched another appeal but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Tombalakian said.
Evangelistic US Supreme Court Nominee Opposed Hindu Temple Construction
Posted November 3, 2005
BY ROB JENNINGS
DAILY RECORD
11/3/2005
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., a federal appeals judge, sided in 2001 with North Bergen against the same Hindu temple that now wants to build in Parsippany.
Alito wrote a dissenting opinion when the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, denied the North Bergen Board Of Adjustment's appeal of a district court ruling favoring BAPS Northeast.
"Because I believe that the board of adjustment's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary and capricious, I would reverse the decision of the district court," Alito wrote in a dissent that hinged mostly on technical details.
Alito's dissent said that "such boards possess special knowledge of local conditions and must be accorded wide latitude in the exercise of their discretion."
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the 3rd Circuit ruling, clearing the way for the North Bergen temple to be built in an industrial zone.
Parsippany's board of adjustment, which is reviewing BAPS'plan to build a temple in an industrial park, wasn't told about the previous legal battle in North Bergen, board Chairman Robert Iracane said on Wednesday.
"I was never aware that there was any parallel situation," Iracane said.
BAPS Northeast started with temples in Edison and in Flushing, N.Y., before acquiring a onetime restaurant/discothèque in North Bergen in 1998 that was mired in bankruptcy, said former temple attorney Steven R. Tombalakian.
North Bergen and Clifton were the third and fourth BAPS temple sites, Tombalakian said. Parsippany would be the fifth.
BAPS required a use variance to build in North Bergen because the site was in an industrial zone -- sparking a controversy similar to the ongoing debate in Parsippany.
In Parsippany, BAPS wants to transform the two-story, 44,313-square-foot Team Products International Building at 3 Entin Road into an assembly hall with room for 636 people.
At the first two public hearings, residents of the nearby Lake Parsippany neighborhood raised concerns about congestion, parking, and even the smell of food being cooked at the site.
Food odor apparently wasn't an issue in North Bergen. Even so, the North Bergen zoning board rejected BAPS' application in 1999, citing traffic and occupancy objections and rejecting the temple's final offer to reduce its seating capacity from 578 to 505.
BAPS appealed the denial to bankruptcy court because of the property's status. The bankruptcy court overturned the denial, and during a second round of hearings, the zoning board insisted that BAPS hire off-duty police officers as a condition of approval.
BAPS appealed the condition and the bankruptcy court again took the board of adjustment to task -- this time, ordering that the variance be granted without the police requirement.
After a district court rejected North Bergen's appeal, the case landed before Alito and the 3rd Circuit. Out of the three judges, only Alito sided with North Bergen.
"Oddly enough, with all the talk that religious zealots love this choice ... (Alito) gave a lot more deference to the municipal fact-finding than I would have," said Tombalakian, part of the BAPS legal team in that case.
It is difficult to derive a wide-ranging assessment of Alito's legal philosophy -- already the subject of a nationwide debate -- based on his opinion in the BAPS case because his dissent hinged largely on procedural matters.
Alito, for example, didn't say whether he agreed with the police requirement -- only that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction in that aspect of the case.
Alito, though, did apply a different standard than Judge Max Rosenn, who wrote the majority opinion, in assessing North Bergen's actions.
Alito argued that New Jersey law requires zoning boards to reject a variance if approval would cause a public detriment or undermine local ordinances.
Rosenn, though, agreed with previous findings that the zoning board failed to incorporate a "balancing test" of positive and negative considerations.
"The parties here agree that the proposed temple constitutes an 'inherently beneficial' use of the subject property," Rosenn wrote.
Alito countered that the North Bergen zoning board "reasonably found that, even with the occupancy limit ... the proposed BAPS temple would cause a substantial detriment to the public good with respect to parking and traffic."
The majority opinion noted that the nightclub had been granted a variance on the same property. Alito's opinion noted that traffic and parking concerns for a house of worship would be different because a nightclub would only draw patrons at night, when other traffic is light.
"I would view this case quite differently if there were any suggestion that the (zoning board) harbored any bias towards BAPS or its members, but I am aware of no such evidence," Alito's dissent also said.
Gerald J. Monahan, attorney for North Bergen in the 2001 case, could not be reached on Wednesday.
Afterward, North Bergen launched another appeal but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Tombalakian said.