Pickleball over people? NJ town moves to seize church and block shelter
Toms River officials say it's about recreation. Critics say the city wants to push the homeless out of sight.
This newsletter is free, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe to Substack or use my usual Patreon page!
A church in New Jersey that hoped to build a transitional housing facility on its property now faces the threat of the city taking over its land altogether. The city insists this isn’t about the homeless shelter and that it just wants to build a public park in that space.
It’s a controversy that erupted into public view late last week, but it’s been brewing for several months.
Christ Episcopal Church in Toms River already allows the non-profit Affordable Housing Alliance to work out of a building on its land. Last year, the church asked for permission from the town’s zoning board to build a 17-bed shelter as an addition to that office.
"It's a good use (for the property)," [church attorney Harvey L. York] said. "We have funding and we would renovate the existing building to accommodate it."
Ocean County has no permanent shelter for the homeless; advocates for those experiencing homelessness argue a shelter could people get back on their feet and connect them to mental health counseling, job training and assistance in getting insurance and identification.
"The answer really is the church is the right place," York said. "There is already counseling there. We are not putting 200 people here. It is 17 beds."
It made perfect sense for the church. After all, this would just be an extension of the work they already do, and they were providing a space that didn’t exist in the community. A different local shelter, which only offered overnight lodging in cold temperatures, was on the verge of shutting down. Another one is only open to families. On top of that, local housing costs have skyrocketed and cheap alternatives like motels are disappearing.
They still needed the city’s permission to build the space, though, specifically by getting an exemption to the zoning laws because this would be on residential property.
In order to get the “use variance” for this shelter, the church had to prove they were offering something with “inherently beneficial use.” A transitional housing facility would logically fit that criteria.
But last month, in true NIMBY fashion, residents complained that a shelter would attract unwanted people to the community.
"I don’t care if you are going to call me a NIMBY, I don’t care if you are going to call me a racist. I am not, I am a taxpayer and I just don’t think it’s fair," said Paula Leotta, who lives on Magnolia Lane, adjacent to the Christ Episcopal Church site where the 949-square-foot shelter addition has been proposed. Leotta's voice cracked and she seemed near tears as she recounted her fears that the 17-bed shelter would act as a "magnet" to draw even more unhoused people to the site.
Her remarks drew loud applause from the crowd.
That lady complained that she had seen unhoused people sleeping on benches and that, because some of them smoked, she worried that they would set the building on fire. “My house is wood,” she argued.
Attorney Edward Bezdecki, who opposes the shelter, said that it wouldn’t be “inherently beneficial” at all because everyone else would suffer due to lower property values and “quality of life”… as well as the kind of people who would stay in the shelter:
"Where is it a benefit? They are not gaining anything, these homes," Bezdecki said. "Forget about the value. I am talking about quality of life. Presently, when you look at the people that are coming to this location. They are coming by in their 20s, wearing black with hoods, masks and backpacks. … They are coming in droves."
Oh no. Not backpacks.
Having a shelter, of course, would give people an alternative to sleeping on benches while also helping them get back on their feet so they don’t have to carry their belonging with them everywhere they go. If you don’t like the sight of that, a local shelter is a way to solve the problem, not exacerbate it. The church was offering to host the shelter and help manage it.
And even if that guy wasn’t talking about property value, others explicitly did. And one man argued that if they agreed to let the church help the homeless, it would be a slippery slope to… helping all kinds of people?
But Toms River resident Paul Williams argued that allowing a variance at the Christ Episcopal Church site could allow other religious institutions to seek their own variances.
"I am adamantly opposed to this application because I see bigger than just this one issue, I see bigger than this application," Williams said. "I am concerned that this is going to open a floodgate that can't be closed."
Nothing worse than a community helping too many people down on their luck, am I right…?
Right now, a zoning board hearing on the “use variance” approval is scheduled for May 22.
As all this is being debated, it’s worth keeping in mind how the community has handled the homelessness issue in general. Last month, Toms River Mayor Dan Rodrick accused Ocean County of “dumping” homeless people in his town in order to exaggerate the housing crisis. He also said the county allowed a branch of JBJ Soul Kitchen, a non-profit restaurant operated by rock star Jon Bon Jovi that provides meals to the hungry at no cost, to open up inside a branch of a local library. Rodrick said it was attracting too many homeless people and leading to “disorderly behavior.”
Now it seems like city officials are very worried this church’s shelter will get approved because they just introduced a completely separate ordinance that would put a stop to it altogether.
Last week, Toms River council members introduced a new ordinance to take over certain parts of the city through eminent domain—just seizing it for public use.
The properties in question included a handful of marinas… and the lot that includes the church. Seriously, just look at this picture of the lot the city wants to take over:
That space includes the church, the non-profit’s office, and the site of the proposed shelter.
The city says this has nothing to do with the proposed shelter at all. That’s a separate issue. Their goal, which they claim has been in the works for a long time, is to create a public park with pickleball courts.
The church property would allow a park to be developed closer to the downtown section as well as the surrounding residential neighborhood, which does not have an easily-accessible park of its own. The property, measuring dozens of acres, could also be used for the construction of pickleball courts, tennis courts, a skate park and playground.
“There is no playground for kids anywhere downtown, for the most part, but specifically this would serve about 20,000 families who live between St. Joseph’s Church and Washington in that ‘diamond’ that runs up to Route 37,” said [Mayor Dan] Rodrick. “There’s nothing there servicing those kids, and this would provide 20,000 to 30,000 people with a place to play. It would be bigger than Castle Park.”
In theory, if the city acquired this land through eminent domain, they would have to pay market value for the buildings currently on the lot. (The church is worth an estimated $2.5 million.) But it’s an open question whether this is the only space in Toms River where a downtown public park could be built.
It would be easier to do this if the church was no longer in use, but that’s not the case at all. According to Episcopal Church Service, the church has “an average Sunday attendance of more than 150” and “is a hub for community outreach, hosting more than 20 support groups and running a food pantry, as well as a weekly clothing distribution effort.”
You also have to wonder how those local residents who oppose the shelter would feel about the park. Would they be upset with all the noise and all the strangers coming to use the park… or were their earlier complaints just coded language to refer to certain kinds of people and they’re not actually bothered by outsiders visiting their area?
It seems fairly obvious that this proposed ordinance is a way to block the church from building the shelter. Rather than rejecting the zoning approval for a shelter, the city could just say it’s a moot point since they would own the land.
When the Toms River Township Council held its monthly meeting last Wednesday, this ordinance was on the agenda. The church found out the day before the meeting, and in an urgent Facebook post, they called on members to show up and push back. They told people to focus on the “improper eminent domain process and not make this a public referendum on the shelter.”
… Toms River Mayor Daniel Rodrick is initiating legal action to force the sale of the Christ Episcopal Church property to Toms River Township. It won’t work legally, but it could be quite an effort for Christ Episcopal Church to prevail. And, keep in mind the property belongs to the Diocese of New Jersey so we are far from alone.
…
The inclusion of the church property in an ordinance to obtain three marinas in downtown was sneaked onto the agenda for today’s Township Council meeting. Today is just the introduction of the proposed ordinance and it would take months, if not years, to complete the process. But, the earlier in the process this can be dealt with, the better.
…
More details will be provided in a few hours. One recommendation, in opposing this action do not make a case for the shelter. There needs to be a razor-sharp focus on the improper eminent domain process and not make this a public referendum on the shelter. That should be dealt with separately.
In theory, they were saying the Episcopal Diocese could fight this in court. They could also make the argument that there were no other Episcopal churches nearby, so this decision would deprive them of their ability to worship freely, something conservative judges might appreciate.
Word spread fast and there were plenty of supporters of the church at the council meeting. But maybe they didn’t even need to be there. Because once the agenda got around to this ordinance, members of the council started arguing about it in a way you rarely see at these types of meetings.
There was a proposal to table the motion—to not even bring it up—and the shouting began immediately. Council member Thomas Nivison (who opposes the plan) yelled at his colleague Craig Coleman, “For the first time this year, do the right thing!”
The attacks got more personal after that. Nivison later said of ordinance supporter Lynn O'Toole, “You hate God, you hate Christ… Obviously, you hate humanity like our mayor. You hate homeless people. C’mon, Lynne!”
And then Nivison went after ordinance supporter William Byrne: “Hey Bill, what are you getting out of this bill?”
A different council member, David Ciccozzi, who also opposes the ordinance, led the room in the Lord’s Prayer. (That’s not helping.)
And at one point, council member James Quinlisk, who opposes the ordinance, warned his colleagues, “There’s no way on God’s green Earth that anybody should vote for this ordinance. This is setting up the town for yet another RLUIPA lawsuit, one that I don't think [the mayor] understands the scale of. This is bad in every direction.” (RLUIPA is a federal law that, among other things, protects houses of worship from zoning discrimination. It’s an extension of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.)
Just watch the chaos ensue here. Nivison is on the far left.
Ultimately, the motion to table the ordinance failed on a 4-3 vote. The ordinance then passed a first reading by the same margin. It will be considered again and voted on at the next meeting, on May 28. That meeting will also allow public comment on the motion, which means there’s more drama to come.
I’ve written a lot of stories about church/state separation and churches demanding public money for private renovations, but this isn’t one of them. The county isn’t providing this kind of shelter. Church officials are offering to do it and going through the proper channels to get legal approval. The controversy that has since emerged has everything to do with what obligations a community has to people with nowhere to live. Some residents would prefer to not deal with it—and hope the people in need give up and go elsewhere—than actually help them in any meaningful way.
While some council members are accusing others of hating God or hating the church, there’s no evidence the council’s majority is doing this out of religious animosity. They just don’t want to see unhoused people in their community because they find the idea icky. And if a church is going to help those people—and openly welcome them into their arms—these council members will do whatever it takes to stop them, even if it means taking over the land they’re sitting on.
It’s not just unethical, it’s likely illegal.
(Update 5/13: I have corrected the article to say this would be a transitional housing facility as opposed to a “homeless shelter.” The goal is not to house people permanently but to give those who need it a temporary landing area.)
"𝐼 𝑑𝑜𝑛’𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑓 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑒 𝑎 𝑁𝐼𝑀𝐵𝑌, 𝐼 𝑑𝑜𝑛’𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑓 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑒 𝑎 𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑡. 𝐼 𝑎𝑚 𝑛𝑜𝑡, 𝐼 𝑎𝑚 𝑎 𝑡𝑎𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑑𝑜𝑛’𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑖𝑡’𝑠 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑟," 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑃𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑎 𝐿𝑒𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑎.
Ms Leotta:
Where, then, would it be fair to build a homeless shelter? In someone elses's back yard? In an industrial park? I know where you want it built. In the "poor" neighborhood. You just don't want a daily reminder that poor people exist.
Yes, a homeless shelter will draw in more homeless people. That doesn’t necessarily mean that these people will do harm. Your bigotry is what is harming the community. Your assumption of personal failings of homeless people are what’s causing issues.
Homeless shelters also improve the area by getting the homeless off the streets.
And if you want to forget, I will remind you that no matter how good you think you have it, you have more in common with a homeless person than you do a billionaire. You are also more likely to experience homelessness. What is it, three lost paychecks away from homelessness but never three good paychecks from becoming a millionaire or billionaire. And the way the USA is going, the billionaires are trying to get your three paychecks. These folks may be begging for a homeless shelter soon.