08-02-2008, 07:26 AM
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/sum...406222_ITM
Hindu Temple Development in the United States: Planning and Zoning Issues.
Publication: Journal of Cultural Geography
Publication Date: 22-MAR-98
Author: Johnson, Jay ; Costa, Frank J.
Ads by Google
Zoning Everything to do with Zoning items.
Minneapolis Zoning Lawyer Need land use legal advice? Condemnation law attorneys
Bid On Construction Get Unlimited Construction Leads. Search 1000s of Bidding Projects!
Permitting and Inspection Complete Permit Tracking and Inspection. Web based solution.
Email this article | Print this article
COPYRIGHT 1998 JCG Press
Abstract. Hindu temple construction has become common in suburban areas of the United States, following a steady wave of immigration from India. Immigrants hope to pass along traditional beliefs and cultural practices to a generation rapidly approaching adulthood. Small but committed groups have raised millions of dollars to build over 200 temples in the 1980s and 1990s. Temple builders face the usual land use concerns of any rezoning request, such as providing parking or shielding neighbors from externalities such as light and noise. Some proposals have met resistance from the established community based on misunderstandings and fears about Hindu practices and beliefs. Such resistance has slowed but not stopped the diffusion of Hindu temples across the United States.
In 1965, the United States ended immigration quotas. An immediate surge in the number of people immigrating from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia followed. Arthur J. Pais and Etta Sanders (1994, 34), writing in the Far Eastern Economic Review, quote Ron Takaki, professor of ethnic history at the University of California at Berkeley: "It took them [immigrants] about a decade to settle down, and once they had made their homes and saw their children doing well[ in schools and colleges, they began building temples."
Building a New Spiritual Home
Asian immigration since the 1970s has led to the construction of many new temples in the United States. In 1994 approximately three million Buddhists and one million Hindus resided in the United States. The number of Buddhist and Hindu shrines, temples, monasteries, and retreat houses is estimated at 1,500. About $200 million has gone into land development and construction, with money raised by both overseas temples and United States immigrants. Pais and Sanders (1994, 34-35) estimate that $100 million is currently being raised for new building and expansion. They suggest that the motivation for this expansion is one of cultural and religious preservation. Immigrants saw their children and grandchildren drifting away from the temple. In the Japanese Buddhist community, for example, religious buildings began to be called "churches" instead of temples.
Temples in the United States serve as places of worship just as they do elsewhere. However, several other functions are required of the structure, and certain changes in religious practice must be made to comply with health and fire codes. Mirta Ojito (1996, 1), makes these distinctions clear with respect to a New Jersey temple:
In traditional temples, hundreds of candles burn at all hours as part of the religious ritual. In Edison, a few candles will do for special occasions. In Gujarat, nobody would walk into a temple with shoes on. But in Edison, where snow can be part of the landscape, visitors can walk into a temple with shoes on but they have to leave them at the door. In India, temples are for prayer and congregation. In Edison, where the temple also has a library and several classrooms, community leaders want the center to play an important role in the education of children and new immigrants.
Ojito goes on to note that in Edison, college students teach traditional Indian music to children born in the United States, and English classes to recent immigrants. The rapid growth in numbers and visibility of Hindu temples has caused a natural reaction on the part of many communities and local governments to something strange and exotic.
Resistance by Local Governments and the Public
Some of the most serious resistance to construction of a Hindu temple was in Gwinnett County, Georgia. A temple was proposed for a site near the Atlanta suburb of Lilburn. The Greater Atlanta Vedic Society applied for a permit to build a temple in December 1988, but was denied permission by local authorities.
Most resistance to the temple drew few people from the immediate neighborhood on Harmony Grove Road, according to a 1989 article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The temple debate mirrored the plight in the same community of a proposed synagogue, Temple Beth David. Vedic Society members spoke before the Gwinnett County Commission in support of the synagogue. The owner of the Hindu temple site, Ajodia Persaud, said: "They are a minority just like me and they are having five acres just like me" (Lavin 1989a, 1).
Neighbors of the Hindu temple objected since trees were cleared on the site before a permit had been issued. Before the hearing, neighbors even thought the Vedic temple would be a commune where members might live and use drugs. Typically, the County Commission would require a year's wait before taking up the same land use issue again, making this request too early by two months. The Vedic Society chose to approach the commission since a special use permit was issued for the synagogue in September 1989.
A special-use permit was again denied. The county asked the Vedic group to add trees and other landscaping to the site. Persaud is quoted in November 1989: "They are trying to add expenses so the Hindu organization will back off, but I'm not going to back off even if it takes every last penny I have to show the people of Gwinnett County that Hindus are here. to stay" (Lavin 1989b, 1). Persaud believed no other religious organization had received similar requests to provide landscape buffers. He said: "We might as well put it in a hole in the ground." The temple was in the district of Plan Commission member Davida Baker. She had been an advocate of extensive buffering. She reminded Persaud that a recently approved Mormon church had been subject to the same landscaping requirements. "I would like to see a Hindu temple in Gwinnett County," Baker said, but added that Persaud's unwillingness to compromise made approval "very difficult." She also stated: "Because the temple is surrounded on all sides by single-family residences, it must be very carefully planned." Douglas Lavin (1989b, 1) noted that since the temple was in Baker's district, most commissioners would follow her lead.
In an another article, Lavin (1989c) commented that between 1986 and 1989, four other churches were denied zoning changes by Gwinnett County. Two were fundamentalist Christian churches, one was affiliated with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, and one was Japanese Presbyterian. Lavin does not elaborate, so whether the denials prevented construction or remodeling is not clear. The suggestion left unspecified is that churches out of the religious mainstream have difficulty in receiving approval.
The approval of a temple in Norwalk, California was equally protracted and difficult. In 1992, 30 Hindu families wanted to build a temple near two Christian churches, along a busy boulevard. According to the Los Angeles Times (Faris 1992), neighborhood residents questioned the project. They wondered why a $1.2 million temple would be constructed for only 80 people. One neighbor suggested that the group's leader really wanted to invite Hindus from across the West Coast, stating: "It's a lot bigger than he's letting on." Neighborhood residents were worried about noise, traffic, and excessive drinking (from Hindus!). Some residents even thought cremation might be conducted at the site. The area had already successfully resisted Sunday adult soccer at a nearby school.
Natoo A. Patel, who led the group of families, said that critics of the temple did not understand Hinduism. The families all worshipped Lord Swaminaraya, a specific deity within Hinduism. The services would be conducted in Gujarati, the language of the Indian state of Gujarat. If Hindus from other parts of India came to the temple, they would not understand what was being said.
Nyal Royse, pastor of a church next to the temple site, called the proposed temple domes a "grotesque monstrosity." However, Carol Savely, who lived across from the temple site, wondered why the nearby Church of Christ and Mormon churches caused no problems, while the Hindus would. She is quoted as noting: "It's very hard to figure out" (Faris 1992, 1). Other neighbors insisted that the issue was not religious or cultural, but simply a desire to avoid more non-residential land use in the area.
The planning staff in Norwalk favored the project. Before the temple land was purchased, the city said that the temple could be built with a conditional-use permit. The refusal to grant a permit surprised Patel and the families. Plans for the temple had already been scaled down with the removal of elaborate carvings and a reduction in the maximum allowable capacity of the building from 531 people to 320. To justify their decision, plan commissioners cited neighborhood opposition. Plan Commissioner Jim Sweet supported the temple at first, but became concerned that expansion was never addressed (Faris 1992).
In 1994, the temple was approved. The group abandoned plans for a traditional temple, and instead submitted a design that resembled a Spanish .mission. This design was approved by the Norwalk City Council since it fit well with the stucco homes in the neighborhood, which were built in the 1950s (Gottesman 1994).
Resistance by Churches
In Northridge, California, a group of Hindus purchased a former Baptist church in November 1995. The Valley View Baptist Church was located in a geodesic dome. Declining membership left the Conservative Baptist church with only 10 people in the congregation. Part of the facility was rented out to a small Korean congregation. During previous financial troubles, the church building had been deeded to the Conservative Baptist Association's local district office. The district needed money, and chose to put the property up for sale, despite protests by the pastor of Valley View.
Interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, the pastor, Justin Houk, said: "We did not want the property to be sold to anyone. There will be a pagan practice where the Gospel used to be preached." Bal K. Sarad, the vice president of the Hindu temple, said: "I was surprised that a professional priest would use any language like that toward any religion. God is one; if we did not believe in God, we would not be saying our prayers." Sarad also stated that the group of 75 Hindus felt lucky that the building had been a church: "To us, it is a sacred place that will continue to be used for a sacred cause" (Dart 1995, 5).
The Northridge Hindu group met in the homes of families throughout the region. The group hoped that the temple also would become a social center and contain a library. There were plans to hire a full-time priest. The president said that the Saturday night religious services in member's homes were a hit: "Everybody likes our performances--just as they like Michael Jackson" (Dart 1995).
Temples Which Avoided Planning-Related Controversy
The California temples were run by relatively small groups. Although tens of thousands of Hindus are estimated to live in Southern California, there were only 12 temples in 1995. By contrast, the Sri Siva Vishnu temple in Lanham, Maryland was meant to unify the worship of 12 Hindu gods for believers in the Washington, D.C. metro area. It drew thousands of people to its grand opening. The shrines, towers and statues were designed by a team of artists supervised by a professor from the College of Temple Architecture in Madras, India. The architect was Ganapathi Stapathi, whose family had been practicing temple architecture for over 1,000 years. The temple was first proposed in the 1970s. Land was finally purchased in the mid-1980s as fund-raising gathered steam (Nirula 1991).
The Sri Lakshmi Temple in Ashland, Massachusetts has a similar history. In 1978, eight Indian immigrants proposed a temple in the Boston area. By 1981, enough money had been raised to buy the land. The group began meeting with a temple architect from the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. While the construction process went on, the Hindu group held services in a local village hall. The main temple hall was completed in 1986, and the temple dedication took place in 1995 (Ribadenaria 1996). The dedication ceremony lasted four days. On the last day, a cow considered sacred by Hindus was venerated. The veneration was explained to a Boston Globe reporter: "During the ceremony, the goddess Lakshmi opens her eyes and the first thing she is supposed to see is a cow as well as little children because they represent life's purity" (Ribadenaria 1996, 1).
A temple in Edison, New Jersey was converted from a 43,000 square foot abandoned toy factory into a striking, saffron yellow structure. Temple leaders here may have learned from past controversies, as they looked at about a dozen sites before finding a location that was large, had adequate parking, and was removed from residential areas. In this case, the land and structure were purchased by the Indian home office of the Bochasanwasi Swaminarayan organization for $1.8 million. The United States group then raised $1.5 million for renovation. Planning for the temple took a year, with 42 drawings made and five trips abroad taken before decisions were finalized on the building style and materials (Ojito 1996).
Church Zoning and Constitutional Law
Zoning is the most common regulatory tool used to enforce land use plans. This power is granted by the state to cities and other general purpose government jurisdictions. Laws restricting the exercise of religion are unconstitutional. Zoning laws must respect free exercise of religion without diminishing the value of the public health, safety, and welfare that land use regulation can provide.
Most of the battles have been over proposed placement of religious structures in residential districts. Determining what religious activities qualify as a "church" under a given definition also has been a thorny issue.
While the United States Supreme Court has ruled on cases pertinent to the free exercise of religion, none of these were related to land use or zoning. In the absence of a definitive ruling, legal scholars seem to agree that there are two camps into which state approaches to land use regulation can fall: either the more permissive "New York" majority position or the more restrictive "California" minority position (Pearlman 1987). Different authors disagree about whether there is a third approach, what the current trends are, and how a reasonable balance can be created between the interests of zoning and religion.
In cases following the New York example, the free exercise of religion is paramount. The courts have been reluctant to allow zoning to restrict church land use. This is the majority view held by most states. An early Indiana case, Board of Zoning Appeals of Decatur v. Jehovah's Witnesses (233 Ind. 83), serves as an example of this view-point. In this case, the planned church would not be set back far enough from some adjacent homes. Parking and traffic generation were also problematic. Here it was argued: "Each zoning case must stand upon its own set of facts and a zoning ordinance may be valid generally, but invalid as applied to certain property." It was also stated that no test of "reasonable interference" with the enjoyment of the rights of property or with personal rights was available, so each case must be decided on its own merits. Finally, it said: "The law is well settled that the building of a church may not be prohibited in a residential district, and if the refusal of the zoning board to grant a variance results in the exclusion of a church from a residential district, such action is illegal and must be reversed" (233 Ind. 83). Traffic issues were considered less important than the right of assembly; partly because services were held at times of light traffic.
There is also the minority, or "due process" view. Here, zoning regulations are considered necessary and permissible, just as a building code would be. Judicial deference to local ordinances is the rule. California law follows the landmark case Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. City of Porterville (203 P. 2nd 823, 1949). In this case, a building permit was denied to a church. The property was partly in the R-1 residential district at the time of purchase, and was later annexed by the city and included in this zone. The R-1 district was meant strictly for single family dwellings. Precedent had been set for the exclusion of businesses and apartments from residential zones. It was suggested that the "peace, comfort, and quiet" created by an R-1 zone would be abused by the assembly of a large number of people in churches. This interpretation of the R-1 zone was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeals: "Such a zoning regulation bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare because it tends to promote and perpetuate the American home and protect its civic and social values."
Hindu temples are noticeably absent from the arguments of legal scholars and judges on church zoning. It is difficult to believe that no litigation has ever taken place that involved temples and land use. The issues and argument,; used in these cases usually have some applicability to the problems Hindu temples have experienced. For example, the Norwalk temple and the Decatur church both faced parking lot requirements, despite the fact that neighboring churches already used public streets for parking.
The resolution of these two cases differed, but not for reasons of belief. The California temple was expected to follow zoning requirements as would any other church in California. The Jehovah's Witnesses were allowed a variance from the parking requirement because of the time of day for services, the limited impact of the cars of 40 to 45 believers, and the setting near three other churches.
Concerns and Impacts
The concerns of Hindu groups are usually not with zoning. Small but committed groups of Hindus have raised sums from a few hundred thousand dollars to well over $1 million to purchase land and to build and furnish temples. Where zoning controversies have occurred, temple leaders normally have diplomatically avoided returning the criticism from church officials and community members. The only episode of uncivil behavior might have been in Georgia, where after a series of attempts to receive approval for a temple, there was name-calling between local residents and the temple president.
The relation of land and temples in India is quite different. Instead of concern over zoning, the federal government has had to regulate the control of land by temple trustees, who oversee hundreds of acres and sometimes use temple land rights for their own profit. The temple plan and location are decided by a connected series of mathematical rules. A series of grids and circles also control temple form.
In the end, planning and zoning has had a limited impact on Hindu temple builders. There are no accounts of Hindu groups defeated in their efforts to build, although it is certainly possible that this could happen. The Gwinnett County Commission approved the Lilburn temple in January 1990. Along with this decision, they also approved the concept of houses of worship in residential neighborhoods. The Hindus vowed to invite the neighborhood residents to a service to help neighbors understand their religion. The planning process has served as a forum for compromise between residential landowners, Christians, and Hindus.
References
Anonymous. 1994. Zoning Ordinances Affecting Churches: A Proposal for Expanded Free Exercise Protection. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 132 (June): 1131-1162.
Dart, John. 1995. Former Baptist Church to be a Hindu Temple. Los Angeles Times, 18 November, sec. B, p. 5.
Faris, Gerald. 1992. Hindus' Plan for Temple in Norwalk Encounters Unfriendly Neighbors. Los Angeles Times, 21 July, sec. B, p. 1.
Gottesman, Jill. 1994. East Meets West. Los Angeles Times, 22 July, Sec. B, p. 1.
Lavin, Douglas. 1989a. Hindus Try Again to Get Temple. Atlanta Journal Constitution, 29 August 29, sec. XJ, p. 1.
--. 1989b. Hindu Accuses County of Bias. Atlanta Journal Constitution, 20 November, sec. XJ, p. 1.
--. 1989c. Hindus Cry Foul at Panel's Finding. Atlanta Journal Constitution, 20 December, sec. XJ, p. 1.
Nirula, Gagan. 1991. New Hindu Temple is Vision of Past. Washington Post, 6 July, sec. C, p. 1.
Ojito, Mirta. 1996. A House of Worship, A Sign of Permanence. New York Times, 12 August, sec. B, p. 1.
Pais, Arthur J. and Etta J. Saunders. 1994. Transplanting God: Asian Immigrants are Building Buddhist and Hindu Temples Across the U.S. Far Eastern Economic Review, 157:34-35.
Pearlman, Kenneth. 1987. Zoning and the Location of Religious Establishments. Catholic Lawyer, 31(Fall):314-345.
Ribadenaria, Diego. 1996. A Hindu Haven in Ashland. Boston Globe, 19 August, sec. B, p. 1.
Teegardin, Carrie. 1989. Hindus Will Reapply for Permission to Build Temple. Atlanta Journal Constitution, 4 September, sec. XJ, p. 1.
Jay Johnson, 1133 Catherine Avenue, Naperville, IL 60540 is a recent M.A. graduate of the geography and urban planning program at The University of Akron.
Frank J. Costa is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Planning, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325.
Hindu Temple Development in the United States: Planning and Zoning Issues.
Publication: Journal of Cultural Geography
Publication Date: 22-MAR-98
Author: Johnson, Jay ; Costa, Frank J.
Ads by Google
Zoning Everything to do with Zoning items.
Minneapolis Zoning Lawyer Need land use legal advice? Condemnation law attorneys
Bid On Construction Get Unlimited Construction Leads. Search 1000s of Bidding Projects!
Permitting and Inspection Complete Permit Tracking and Inspection. Web based solution.
Email this article | Print this article
COPYRIGHT 1998 JCG Press
Abstract. Hindu temple construction has become common in suburban areas of the United States, following a steady wave of immigration from India. Immigrants hope to pass along traditional beliefs and cultural practices to a generation rapidly approaching adulthood. Small but committed groups have raised millions of dollars to build over 200 temples in the 1980s and 1990s. Temple builders face the usual land use concerns of any rezoning request, such as providing parking or shielding neighbors from externalities such as light and noise. Some proposals have met resistance from the established community based on misunderstandings and fears about Hindu practices and beliefs. Such resistance has slowed but not stopped the diffusion of Hindu temples across the United States.
In 1965, the United States ended immigration quotas. An immediate surge in the number of people immigrating from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia followed. Arthur J. Pais and Etta Sanders (1994, 34), writing in the Far Eastern Economic Review, quote Ron Takaki, professor of ethnic history at the University of California at Berkeley: "It took them [immigrants] about a decade to settle down, and once they had made their homes and saw their children doing well[ in schools and colleges, they began building temples."
Building a New Spiritual Home
Asian immigration since the 1970s has led to the construction of many new temples in the United States. In 1994 approximately three million Buddhists and one million Hindus resided in the United States. The number of Buddhist and Hindu shrines, temples, monasteries, and retreat houses is estimated at 1,500. About $200 million has gone into land development and construction, with money raised by both overseas temples and United States immigrants. Pais and Sanders (1994, 34-35) estimate that $100 million is currently being raised for new building and expansion. They suggest that the motivation for this expansion is one of cultural and religious preservation. Immigrants saw their children and grandchildren drifting away from the temple. In the Japanese Buddhist community, for example, religious buildings began to be called "churches" instead of temples.
Temples in the United States serve as places of worship just as they do elsewhere. However, several other functions are required of the structure, and certain changes in religious practice must be made to comply with health and fire codes. Mirta Ojito (1996, 1), makes these distinctions clear with respect to a New Jersey temple:
In traditional temples, hundreds of candles burn at all hours as part of the religious ritual. In Edison, a few candles will do for special occasions. In Gujarat, nobody would walk into a temple with shoes on. But in Edison, where snow can be part of the landscape, visitors can walk into a temple with shoes on but they have to leave them at the door. In India, temples are for prayer and congregation. In Edison, where the temple also has a library and several classrooms, community leaders want the center to play an important role in the education of children and new immigrants.
Ojito goes on to note that in Edison, college students teach traditional Indian music to children born in the United States, and English classes to recent immigrants. The rapid growth in numbers and visibility of Hindu temples has caused a natural reaction on the part of many communities and local governments to something strange and exotic.
Resistance by Local Governments and the Public
Some of the most serious resistance to construction of a Hindu temple was in Gwinnett County, Georgia. A temple was proposed for a site near the Atlanta suburb of Lilburn. The Greater Atlanta Vedic Society applied for a permit to build a temple in December 1988, but was denied permission by local authorities.
Most resistance to the temple drew few people from the immediate neighborhood on Harmony Grove Road, according to a 1989 article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The temple debate mirrored the plight in the same community of a proposed synagogue, Temple Beth David. Vedic Society members spoke before the Gwinnett County Commission in support of the synagogue. The owner of the Hindu temple site, Ajodia Persaud, said: "They are a minority just like me and they are having five acres just like me" (Lavin 1989a, 1).
Neighbors of the Hindu temple objected since trees were cleared on the site before a permit had been issued. Before the hearing, neighbors even thought the Vedic temple would be a commune where members might live and use drugs. Typically, the County Commission would require a year's wait before taking up the same land use issue again, making this request too early by two months. The Vedic Society chose to approach the commission since a special use permit was issued for the synagogue in September 1989.
A special-use permit was again denied. The county asked the Vedic group to add trees and other landscaping to the site. Persaud is quoted in November 1989: "They are trying to add expenses so the Hindu organization will back off, but I'm not going to back off even if it takes every last penny I have to show the people of Gwinnett County that Hindus are here. to stay" (Lavin 1989b, 1). Persaud believed no other religious organization had received similar requests to provide landscape buffers. He said: "We might as well put it in a hole in the ground." The temple was in the district of Plan Commission member Davida Baker. She had been an advocate of extensive buffering. She reminded Persaud that a recently approved Mormon church had been subject to the same landscaping requirements. "I would like to see a Hindu temple in Gwinnett County," Baker said, but added that Persaud's unwillingness to compromise made approval "very difficult." She also stated: "Because the temple is surrounded on all sides by single-family residences, it must be very carefully planned." Douglas Lavin (1989b, 1) noted that since the temple was in Baker's district, most commissioners would follow her lead.
In an another article, Lavin (1989c) commented that between 1986 and 1989, four other churches were denied zoning changes by Gwinnett County. Two were fundamentalist Christian churches, one was affiliated with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, and one was Japanese Presbyterian. Lavin does not elaborate, so whether the denials prevented construction or remodeling is not clear. The suggestion left unspecified is that churches out of the religious mainstream have difficulty in receiving approval.
The approval of a temple in Norwalk, California was equally protracted and difficult. In 1992, 30 Hindu families wanted to build a temple near two Christian churches, along a busy boulevard. According to the Los Angeles Times (Faris 1992), neighborhood residents questioned the project. They wondered why a $1.2 million temple would be constructed for only 80 people. One neighbor suggested that the group's leader really wanted to invite Hindus from across the West Coast, stating: "It's a lot bigger than he's letting on." Neighborhood residents were worried about noise, traffic, and excessive drinking (from Hindus!). Some residents even thought cremation might be conducted at the site. The area had already successfully resisted Sunday adult soccer at a nearby school.
Natoo A. Patel, who led the group of families, said that critics of the temple did not understand Hinduism. The families all worshipped Lord Swaminaraya, a specific deity within Hinduism. The services would be conducted in Gujarati, the language of the Indian state of Gujarat. If Hindus from other parts of India came to the temple, they would not understand what was being said.
Nyal Royse, pastor of a church next to the temple site, called the proposed temple domes a "grotesque monstrosity." However, Carol Savely, who lived across from the temple site, wondered why the nearby Church of Christ and Mormon churches caused no problems, while the Hindus would. She is quoted as noting: "It's very hard to figure out" (Faris 1992, 1). Other neighbors insisted that the issue was not religious or cultural, but simply a desire to avoid more non-residential land use in the area.
The planning staff in Norwalk favored the project. Before the temple land was purchased, the city said that the temple could be built with a conditional-use permit. The refusal to grant a permit surprised Patel and the families. Plans for the temple had already been scaled down with the removal of elaborate carvings and a reduction in the maximum allowable capacity of the building from 531 people to 320. To justify their decision, plan commissioners cited neighborhood opposition. Plan Commissioner Jim Sweet supported the temple at first, but became concerned that expansion was never addressed (Faris 1992).
In 1994, the temple was approved. The group abandoned plans for a traditional temple, and instead submitted a design that resembled a Spanish .mission. This design was approved by the Norwalk City Council since it fit well with the stucco homes in the neighborhood, which were built in the 1950s (Gottesman 1994).
Resistance by Churches
In Northridge, California, a group of Hindus purchased a former Baptist church in November 1995. The Valley View Baptist Church was located in a geodesic dome. Declining membership left the Conservative Baptist church with only 10 people in the congregation. Part of the facility was rented out to a small Korean congregation. During previous financial troubles, the church building had been deeded to the Conservative Baptist Association's local district office. The district needed money, and chose to put the property up for sale, despite protests by the pastor of Valley View.
Interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, the pastor, Justin Houk, said: "We did not want the property to be sold to anyone. There will be a pagan practice where the Gospel used to be preached." Bal K. Sarad, the vice president of the Hindu temple, said: "I was surprised that a professional priest would use any language like that toward any religion. God is one; if we did not believe in God, we would not be saying our prayers." Sarad also stated that the group of 75 Hindus felt lucky that the building had been a church: "To us, it is a sacred place that will continue to be used for a sacred cause" (Dart 1995, 5).
The Northridge Hindu group met in the homes of families throughout the region. The group hoped that the temple also would become a social center and contain a library. There were plans to hire a full-time priest. The president said that the Saturday night religious services in member's homes were a hit: "Everybody likes our performances--just as they like Michael Jackson" (Dart 1995).
Temples Which Avoided Planning-Related Controversy
The California temples were run by relatively small groups. Although tens of thousands of Hindus are estimated to live in Southern California, there were only 12 temples in 1995. By contrast, the Sri Siva Vishnu temple in Lanham, Maryland was meant to unify the worship of 12 Hindu gods for believers in the Washington, D.C. metro area. It drew thousands of people to its grand opening. The shrines, towers and statues were designed by a team of artists supervised by a professor from the College of Temple Architecture in Madras, India. The architect was Ganapathi Stapathi, whose family had been practicing temple architecture for over 1,000 years. The temple was first proposed in the 1970s. Land was finally purchased in the mid-1980s as fund-raising gathered steam (Nirula 1991).
The Sri Lakshmi Temple in Ashland, Massachusetts has a similar history. In 1978, eight Indian immigrants proposed a temple in the Boston area. By 1981, enough money had been raised to buy the land. The group began meeting with a temple architect from the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. While the construction process went on, the Hindu group held services in a local village hall. The main temple hall was completed in 1986, and the temple dedication took place in 1995 (Ribadenaria 1996). The dedication ceremony lasted four days. On the last day, a cow considered sacred by Hindus was venerated. The veneration was explained to a Boston Globe reporter: "During the ceremony, the goddess Lakshmi opens her eyes and the first thing she is supposed to see is a cow as well as little children because they represent life's purity" (Ribadenaria 1996, 1).
A temple in Edison, New Jersey was converted from a 43,000 square foot abandoned toy factory into a striking, saffron yellow structure. Temple leaders here may have learned from past controversies, as they looked at about a dozen sites before finding a location that was large, had adequate parking, and was removed from residential areas. In this case, the land and structure were purchased by the Indian home office of the Bochasanwasi Swaminarayan organization for $1.8 million. The United States group then raised $1.5 million for renovation. Planning for the temple took a year, with 42 drawings made and five trips abroad taken before decisions were finalized on the building style and materials (Ojito 1996).
Church Zoning and Constitutional Law
Zoning is the most common regulatory tool used to enforce land use plans. This power is granted by the state to cities and other general purpose government jurisdictions. Laws restricting the exercise of religion are unconstitutional. Zoning laws must respect free exercise of religion without diminishing the value of the public health, safety, and welfare that land use regulation can provide.
Most of the battles have been over proposed placement of religious structures in residential districts. Determining what religious activities qualify as a "church" under a given definition also has been a thorny issue.
While the United States Supreme Court has ruled on cases pertinent to the free exercise of religion, none of these were related to land use or zoning. In the absence of a definitive ruling, legal scholars seem to agree that there are two camps into which state approaches to land use regulation can fall: either the more permissive "New York" majority position or the more restrictive "California" minority position (Pearlman 1987). Different authors disagree about whether there is a third approach, what the current trends are, and how a reasonable balance can be created between the interests of zoning and religion.
In cases following the New York example, the free exercise of religion is paramount. The courts have been reluctant to allow zoning to restrict church land use. This is the majority view held by most states. An early Indiana case, Board of Zoning Appeals of Decatur v. Jehovah's Witnesses (233 Ind. 83), serves as an example of this view-point. In this case, the planned church would not be set back far enough from some adjacent homes. Parking and traffic generation were also problematic. Here it was argued: "Each zoning case must stand upon its own set of facts and a zoning ordinance may be valid generally, but invalid as applied to certain property." It was also stated that no test of "reasonable interference" with the enjoyment of the rights of property or with personal rights was available, so each case must be decided on its own merits. Finally, it said: "The law is well settled that the building of a church may not be prohibited in a residential district, and if the refusal of the zoning board to grant a variance results in the exclusion of a church from a residential district, such action is illegal and must be reversed" (233 Ind. 83). Traffic issues were considered less important than the right of assembly; partly because services were held at times of light traffic.
There is also the minority, or "due process" view. Here, zoning regulations are considered necessary and permissible, just as a building code would be. Judicial deference to local ordinances is the rule. California law follows the landmark case Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. City of Porterville (203 P. 2nd 823, 1949). In this case, a building permit was denied to a church. The property was partly in the R-1 residential district at the time of purchase, and was later annexed by the city and included in this zone. The R-1 district was meant strictly for single family dwellings. Precedent had been set for the exclusion of businesses and apartments from residential zones. It was suggested that the "peace, comfort, and quiet" created by an R-1 zone would be abused by the assembly of a large number of people in churches. This interpretation of the R-1 zone was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeals: "Such a zoning regulation bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare because it tends to promote and perpetuate the American home and protect its civic and social values."
Hindu temples are noticeably absent from the arguments of legal scholars and judges on church zoning. It is difficult to believe that no litigation has ever taken place that involved temples and land use. The issues and argument,; used in these cases usually have some applicability to the problems Hindu temples have experienced. For example, the Norwalk temple and the Decatur church both faced parking lot requirements, despite the fact that neighboring churches already used public streets for parking.
The resolution of these two cases differed, but not for reasons of belief. The California temple was expected to follow zoning requirements as would any other church in California. The Jehovah's Witnesses were allowed a variance from the parking requirement because of the time of day for services, the limited impact of the cars of 40 to 45 believers, and the setting near three other churches.
Concerns and Impacts
The concerns of Hindu groups are usually not with zoning. Small but committed groups of Hindus have raised sums from a few hundred thousand dollars to well over $1 million to purchase land and to build and furnish temples. Where zoning controversies have occurred, temple leaders normally have diplomatically avoided returning the criticism from church officials and community members. The only episode of uncivil behavior might have been in Georgia, where after a series of attempts to receive approval for a temple, there was name-calling between local residents and the temple president.
The relation of land and temples in India is quite different. Instead of concern over zoning, the federal government has had to regulate the control of land by temple trustees, who oversee hundreds of acres and sometimes use temple land rights for their own profit. The temple plan and location are decided by a connected series of mathematical rules. A series of grids and circles also control temple form.
In the end, planning and zoning has had a limited impact on Hindu temple builders. There are no accounts of Hindu groups defeated in their efforts to build, although it is certainly possible that this could happen. The Gwinnett County Commission approved the Lilburn temple in January 1990. Along with this decision, they also approved the concept of houses of worship in residential neighborhoods. The Hindus vowed to invite the neighborhood residents to a service to help neighbors understand their religion. The planning process has served as a forum for compromise between residential landowners, Christians, and Hindus.
References
Anonymous. 1994. Zoning Ordinances Affecting Churches: A Proposal for Expanded Free Exercise Protection. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 132 (June): 1131-1162.
Dart, John. 1995. Former Baptist Church to be a Hindu Temple. Los Angeles Times, 18 November, sec. B, p. 5.
Faris, Gerald. 1992. Hindus' Plan for Temple in Norwalk Encounters Unfriendly Neighbors. Los Angeles Times, 21 July, sec. B, p. 1.
Gottesman, Jill. 1994. East Meets West. Los Angeles Times, 22 July, Sec. B, p. 1.
Lavin, Douglas. 1989a. Hindus Try Again to Get Temple. Atlanta Journal Constitution, 29 August 29, sec. XJ, p. 1.
--. 1989b. Hindu Accuses County of Bias. Atlanta Journal Constitution, 20 November, sec. XJ, p. 1.
--. 1989c. Hindus Cry Foul at Panel's Finding. Atlanta Journal Constitution, 20 December, sec. XJ, p. 1.
Nirula, Gagan. 1991. New Hindu Temple is Vision of Past. Washington Post, 6 July, sec. C, p. 1.
Ojito, Mirta. 1996. A House of Worship, A Sign of Permanence. New York Times, 12 August, sec. B, p. 1.
Pais, Arthur J. and Etta J. Saunders. 1994. Transplanting God: Asian Immigrants are Building Buddhist and Hindu Temples Across the U.S. Far Eastern Economic Review, 157:34-35.
Pearlman, Kenneth. 1987. Zoning and the Location of Religious Establishments. Catholic Lawyer, 31(Fall):314-345.
Ribadenaria, Diego. 1996. A Hindu Haven in Ashland. Boston Globe, 19 August, sec. B, p. 1.
Teegardin, Carrie. 1989. Hindus Will Reapply for Permission to Build Temple. Atlanta Journal Constitution, 4 September, sec. XJ, p. 1.
Jay Johnson, 1133 Catherine Avenue, Naperville, IL 60540 is a recent M.A. graduate of the geography and urban planning program at The University of Akron.
Frank J. Costa is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Planning, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325.