Opponents Of Mosque Near WTC Site Plan To File Lawsuit

[sabra]

Source: NY1 News

Opponents of a plan to build a mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center are planning to file suit today, challenging the decision not to grant landmark status to the building set to be demolished to make way for the project.

The American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Reverend Pat Robertson, plans to file a petition that the Landmarks Preservation Commission acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion.

This comes after the panel voted unanimously to deny landmark status to the building at 45 Park Place that would be torn down so the mosque can be built.

Commissioners said the building did not warrant protection.

Read more: http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/123195/opponents-of-mosque-near-wtc-site-plan-to-file-lawsuit

[saigon68]

1. Hateful Pukes

Nice Religion too. Bigoted Mother Fuckers

[Angry Dragon]

2. Everyone should write a letter to pat

and ask him to explain how he had his dad the senator get him out of really fighting in the Korean War so he could be a liquor officer and have sex with women that were not his wife.

I am glad he finds it so christian to be able to tell everyone else how to live their lives.............

[sinkingfeeling]

3. So, Pat Robertson is a resident of NYC? What standing would he have?

[brooklynite]

Perhaps they should read Mayor Bloomberg's comments...

“In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue, and they were turned down. In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies, and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

“In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center....

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that,"

[Mike Daniels]

4. Seriously, what are their legal grounds for trying to overturn this?

I would think the only people that could ask to overturn this would be the owners of the property that was denied historical status.

[jberryhill]

6. It is a fundraising vehicle. /nt

[Jim Lane]

8. New York's law of standing is pretty liberal

The owners of a building usually oppose landmark status, because the designation restricts what they can do with their property. The owners would certainly have standing to challenge a decision to declare it landmarked.

If (as here) the decision is the other way, though, who has standing? If no one but the owners had standing, then there'd be a big loophole in our historic-preservation law. Without having bothered to research it, I'd guess that someone in the neighborhood would have standing. Perhaps historic-preservation groups would, too, but I'm sure that Robertson can find some downtown Islamophobe to front for him.

His problem will be that the only legitimate issue is the building's historic value. Robertson will have to leave his religious rants at home and focus on explaining why the building that's there now shouldn't be torn down -- without regard to what's proposed to replace it on the site.

I bet a lot of the Tea Party types who decry excessive government regulation will suddenly become ardent partisans of New York City's law to preserve historic buildings. Of course, this is a perfect example of a government regulation that interferes with the ability of a private landowner to use his own property as he sees fit. Isn't that socialism? So, why does Pat Robertson hate America?

[BlueIdaho]

5. Let's Review republican tea party core values...

Trial Lawyers? Bad...

Frivelous Law Suits? Really Bad...

That is the end of today's lesson.

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. They should all get shirts with the words

"I'm with stupid" and an arrow pointing to the neckhole.