How San Diego Handled a Home Bible Study Issue: They Talked it Out

The issue of Chuck and Stephanie Fromm getting cited for having a home Bible study isn't new, of course.

And while city officials are quick to say "we don't prohibit home Bible studies," they don't add that "we just require permits." Or even worse, "We're not sure when something is a regular meeting and would require a permit...."

The city's code is vague, saying only "religious, fraternal and non-profit" uses require a permit. It doesn't even say "regular uses" or "frequent uses."

And this bit about more than 50 people constitutes a "public gathering place" is a bit of a red herring -- the Fromms were cited under the above code, nothing about "public gathering places." And again, even if it was 10 people, the code seems to say they need a permit. Probably. Maybe. Most likely.

Oh, and this covers the association club house, too. So if you're having your HOA meetings in your HOA clubhouse, I suspect that's a violation.

So the city couches it as a land-use issue -- parking, etc. Maybe is that, but doesn't that just open the door to all sorts of things? It's a public street, so why would the city get involved if cars are parked legally on a public street for two hours on Sunday?

There's laws against blocking driveways and littering, so if THAT's the problem, why not ticket the offenders?

There's no noise coming from the Fromm home, so that's not the issue. But if it was, there's ordinances for that, too.

But this is the sort of dispute that happens everywhere. I found an example on Snopes (of all places) that seemed particluarly on point (for all you lawyers out there.)

From www.snopes.com:

In 2009, a couple (a pastor) in Bonita, San Diego County were cited for holding regular Bible studies in their home. They were told to apply for a permit. When a lawsuit was threatened and folks complained, the county backed off and said they were talking with the couple to find a resolution, and meanwhile the Bible studies continued.

This, from Sign On San Diego, could have been written here, today -- just change the name to Fromm:

Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all.

Religious assembly, under the county land-use code, is defined as “religious services involving public assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples, and churches.”

Wallar said that definition, which doesn't spell out specific thresholds on when a religious gathering becomes a religious assembly, probably needs to be clarified and that more training may be warranted for code enforcement officers.

She said the county was not targeting the Joneses because they were exercising their religion, but rather it was trying to address parking and traffic issues.

“We've advised the pastor he has the authority to continue to hold his meetings just as he's held them,” Wallar said. “My hope is we will be able to resolve the traffic concerns.”

Wallar said the person who filed the complaint alleged that Bible study was drawing 30 to 40 cars.

 

Comments

[Jim Reardon]

Nice research, Jonathan.

For guidance here, one needs to consider the original intent of our municipal ordinance. It certainly wasn't intended to suppress religion, or even group gatherings in homes. But the poor construction of the law has created this result. The ensuing citation, administrative hearings, fees, and fines, not to mention the lost time and general bad feelings are instructive as to why we don't need laws to cover every possible situation the might arise in our town. I'm reminded of the prohibition of daggers in public parks.

Vague and poorly constructed law is worse than no law at all.

The obvious intention of the ordinance is to prevent the conversion of a residential property to one of the prohibited purposes. But realistically, this can only occur if the property is no longer used as a residence. Since nobody disputes that the Fromms actually reside in the home, the only remaining context has the City denying them the right to conduct a private Bible study in their private home.

Those who would argue that the ordinance is reasonable since it allows the Fromms to apply for a permit are missing the point. Under what conditions might this permit application be denied? If it can't be denied, then what is the purpose of the permit? Certainly, the City doesn't intend to impose "fees" (aka taxes) on private Bible study, Rotary meetings, political gatherings, etc?

Some might say that the permit process would allow the City to attach conditions or restrictions to the Fromm's use of their home for a Bible study. "Conditions or restrictions" on a private religious observance held within their home? What might be reasonable conditions? Who among us wants to decide what is a reasonable condition for a religious gathering, a Rotary meeting, or a political gathering in a private home?

The City really should get out of the silly ordinance business and stop using expensive administrative law procedures as a source of revenue.

Another obvious problem with our municipal code is that, lacking the budget to enforce it, the CIty only reacts to complaints. This creates a tool for those who might, out of spite, make complaints, thus using the City as a tool of harassement. When this is combined with poorly written law, the Fromm case demonstrates that the result can be ridiculous.

The City should delete any ordinance it lacks the budget to enforce. After all, that budget is an expression of our true priorities. Only then can we know whether the City Council has the will to enforce what laws remain.

[Dano]

Commenters wishing that government would go away notwithstanding, it is true that the ordinance is vague. That doesn't take away the parking and Life Safety conflict. The permit could be issued with the condition that cars don't block the lane for life safety vehicles. The condition could be less than 15 vehicles only. The condition could define regular church services. The condition could be x, y, z. Simple.

Now that a right-wing legal outfit is involved, I doubt the City has the money to drag this out, especially since this is land-use and the Koch boys can get involved. They can agree to rewrite code if the Fromms get their church's cars off the road (yes, it is a church).

Best,

D