Skip to main content

First The Verdict, Then The Trial


Suffering from a troublesome case of anti-Semitic indigestion, “pete” from West Hartford belched in the Hartford Courant commentary section attached to a story called “A Tangle Of Tensions, “go back to isreal (sic) and steal some more land, dirtbag (sic) troublemakers.”

The comment is a dramatic overstatement of some of the tensions underlying a decision of Litchfield’s Historic Commission to deny a Jewish orthodox religious group, Chabad Lubavich, permission to convert a “home” into a Jewish temple. 

The historic “home” on Litchfield’s pristine town green was gutted 40 years earlier and turned into a business, seriously compromising the “home’s” historical character. Like the poor, anti-Semitism will always be with us. But in this particular case, a just decision between the competing claims of Chabad Lubavich and Litchfield’s Historic Commission very likely will be settled in court. 

The dispute, in any case, appears to be tending in that direction since the Historic Commission refused Chabad Lubavich’s petition on December 20th. The court, one may be sure, will render its decision based on the facts of the case, which have very little to do with the anti-Semitic hostilities of “pete” from West Hartford. 

The Historic Commission objected to the clock tower that Chabad Lubavich wishes to add to the former “home” but would allow a finial bearing a Jewish star. Previously the commission objected to the addition of a Jewish star, but some observant commentators pointed out to the commission that there were no fewer than two Jewish stars blighting a nearby Methodist church on what is referred to in the town as “Church Row.” 

The commission in a seven page declaration argued that the additions proposed were too large. While denying the application, the commission said it would welcome a new application only if Chabad Lubavich’s plans did not exceed 6,000 square feet. 

There are, however, a number of buildings in the historic district that do not comply with the standard imposed by the commission on Chabad Lubavich. The proposed renovation of Town Hall, presently 7,884 square feet, would be expanded to 20,000-square-feet under current plans. The Town Hall is located directly across the street from the proposed Jewish temple. 

The Jewish temple would share a neighborhood with Episcopalian, Methodist and Roman Catholic congregations, each of which occupy structures much larger than the space Chabad-Lubavitch needs to services its needs. 

"We deliberately picked this site two years ago,” said Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach told the commission, “because we wanted to be at the center of religious worship in Litchfield and contribute to the life of the town."

All the Chabad wants is to be treated like other religions, to be on church row and have a structure of equal size to those churches," Merriam said. "But the commission has denied us that right tonight, and there are many remedies under the law with which to proceed."

Chabad Lubavich’s lawyer, Peter Herbst, asked the Historic Commission, “ "I have to ask why, when the Historic District Commission is dealing with a constitutionally protected use such as the Chabad, rather than a nursing home … or town hall, which is not afforded similar protection under the Constitution, why would a different and more-difficult-to-meet standard be applied?"

That is a question the Historic Commission will not be able to dodge in a court proceeding. Lawyers for Chabad Lubavich may be expected to argue in future court proceedings that the restrictions imposed by the Historic Commission place an undue burden on the religious organization’s First Amendment Rights. The protections afforded religious organizations under the U.S. Constitution are not all that ambiguous. The court cannot allow zoning regulations, rules promulgated by government agencies and dubious Historic Commission decisions to trump constitutional safeguards that courts themselves are sworn to protect and uphold.

Comments

Don Pesci said…
The petition was approved in 2013 -- https://www.nhregister.com/connecticut/article/Borough-of-Litchfield-Historic-District-11419126.php

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p