O-2004-2770 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.. e e furtherance of public health, safety, morals or general welfare, and 2) substantially related to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. The law also gives municipalities, in the proper exercise of their police power, authority to demolish unsafe buildings which constitute a threat to the public welfare. Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 214. This statue does not distinguish between non-religious structures and religious structures. Significantly, after a thorough search, I did not locate any case authority which imposes additional or different restrictions on municipal procedures to demolish religious structures. Therefore, in my opinion the City of La Porte would be well within the law by acting to order the demolition of the structure at 501 S. 4th Street, should there be sufficient evidence that the structure is a present threat to the health and safety of the public, as per our ordinance. I would add that in this particular case without any evidence that the structure is being used as a church (or ever was so used), the entire issue may be moot. By all indications the city has attempted to contact the church at its known addresses, and has given the church the opportunity to file a response, including through participation at a public hearing, without a response. I do want to make council aware of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, a Federal law that prohibits any zoning that "substantially burdens" religious exercise without a government showing of a "compelling interest". There is also a similar law in the state of Texas. Both laws, in my opinion, do not affect the City in this situation. First, these laws address the issue of zoning, not building codes, and were passed to prohibit attempts by cities to "squeeze out" churches by zoning schemes. Second, as I stated before, the city has given the owner of the subject property every opportunity to respond to the proposed council action, but has received. no answer. Third, because the subject property apparently is not used for church activities, it would be nearly impossible to "substantially burden" religious exercise, when there is in fact no religious exercise to speak of. Thank you, and should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at my office. Sincerely, ~/,~ Clark T. Askins Assist. City Attorney