It's occurred to me lately that the Our Lady of Hope lawsuit about historic preservation has dragged on for just about as long as the famous 3-year duration of the 8.5 Million Dollar Insurance Trial, June, 2005 to June, 2008. How could anyone forget that marathon, in which over a hundred victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Diocesan personnel over 60 years settled for millions of dollars after a convoluted courthouse journey encompassing dozens of lawyers and thousands of pages of disputed documents? The combined lawyer's bills alone must have been in the millions, though there was never an accounting of that particular item.
The stakes in this case are completely different. Here, there is only a solitary church, which has been deemed "historic" by the municipality of Springfield, and which has been deemed "non-historic" just as strongly by Bishop McDonnell, who has expressed a wish to encase it in concrete, if not tear it down completely.
The thing that unites the two lawsuits is that both were initiated by McDonnell and carried out with fidelity by John Egan, the longtime counsel for the diocese: both use every trick in the book: obfuscation, delaying tactics, endless appeals and arguing on technicalities are only a few. This conduct was particularly egregious in the case of the abuse victims, since their claims were essentially held hostage during the 3-year litigation. The Bishop's rejection of historic preservation, while still a widely-held social value, is less bad, I suppose, than the rejection of the dignity and rights of the victims of sexual abuse. Still, the tactics are aimed at the same effect, which is a general fatigue on the part of City lawyers and a greater inclination to move toward settlement as opposed to fighting it out.
With that in mind, below is a presentation of the main answers that the City's lawyers made to the purported 'facts' of the bishop's case. This happened fairly early in the proceedings as part of the groundwork for building the respective arguments. Each side sought summary declaration (that is, each side claimed that there were no substantial differences to decide, and that they should prevail by applying existing law to a recitation of the facts alone; thus the importance of the facts). This document has been shortened.
===============================
Case 3:10-cv-30033-MAP Document 27
Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT
OF MASSACHUSETTS
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SPRINGFIELD,
Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ET AL,
Defendants
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
AND DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTARY
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
Undisputed Material Facts
Springfield does not dispute most of
the material facts set forth in paragraphs 1–31, 32
(which does
not make any statement of material fact), 33–46, 49, 50, 52–63,
66, 70, and 71.
However, Springfield does dispute those
portions of the said paragraphs,
and all other paragraphs in
Plaintiff’s Statement, in which plaintiff mischaracterizes the
exterior
architectural features on the OLOH site as “religious”
expressions, details, features,
ornamentation, or symbols.
Springfield states that the plaintiff, by closing the OLOH church and
placing it “out of service with respect to religious worship,”
abandoned the “religious” nature of
said exterior architectural
features on the OLOH site, and thereby changed the status of the
exterior architectural features on the OLOH site from religious to
non-religious – from sacred to
temporal goods.
Disputed Material Facts
2. Springfield disputes Plaintiff’s
Statement, in paragraph 48: “On December 14, 2009, the
RCB,
through its counsel, appeared at a meeting of the Springfield
Historical Commission and
voiced objections based upon inadequate
notice, that the designation imposed a constitutionally
impermissible burden and that the creation of this Historic District
would infringe upon the
RCB’s constitutionally protected rights of
religious freedom and freedom of speech, its statutory
rights under
RLUIPA and that the designation was unlawful spot regulation and a
violation of
other law. Further, the RCB asserted that the
designation was an unlawful intrusion into its
Pastoral Planning
process as evidenced by the fact that the proponents of the Ordinance
were
parish members who had expressed their unhappiness with the
closing of the parish and members
of another parish, Immaculate
Conception in Indian Orchard, slated to be closed and who had
taken
steps to have the Immaculate Conception Church, rectory, school and
convent similarly
designated by the Historical Commission and
defendants. The RCB asked the Historical
Commission to reject the
proposal to create this single-parcel Historic District, and at a
minimum, to seek a legal opinion to assess the constitutional effect
of such a designation and
regulation on the RCB, and to address all
other legal ramifications of the proposed district. The
Commission
refused to seek such an opinion before reporting to the Springfield
City Council its
recommendation to create this historic district.
Affidavit of John J. Egan, ¶ ¶ 5, 6 and 10 (App.
Ex. 5);
Complaint, ¶ 24 (App. Ex. 1).”
Springfield asserts that the Our Lady
of Hope Historic District (the “Ordinance”) is not a
“constitutionally impermissible burden” and does not “infringe
upon the RCB’s constitutionally
protected rights of religious
freedom and freedom of speech, [or] its statutory rights under
RLUIPA.” Furthermore, the Ordinance is not an “unlawful spot
regulation [or] a violation of
other law,” since the Historic
Districts Act, G.L. c. 40C, Section 3, allows for the creation of
single-parcel historic districts.
5. Springfield disputes Plaintiff’s
Statement, in paragraph 64: “The Our Lady of Hope
Historic
District, and the later enacted Immaculate Conception Historic
District, are the only
historic districts in the City of Springfield
encompassing property of the RCB. Affidavit of John
J. Egan, ¶ 21
(App. Ex. 5).”
As noted in the Affidavit of Robert
McCarroll: Springfield’s Local Historic Districts
(“LHD”)
include a number of religious institutions within their boundaries.
Springfield created
the Quadrangle-Mattoon Street LHD, its first
district under MGL Chapter 40C, in 1972. Within
its boundaries and
subject to its exterior controls are Christ Church Episcopal
Cathedral and
Hispanic Baptist Church (Grace Baptist Church at the
time of enactment). (Exhibit A McCarroll
Aff. ¶ 10).
Springfield created the Forest Park
Heights LHD in 1975. Within its boundaries and
subject to its
exterior controls are Faith United Church, Kodimoh Synagogue, and
First Park
Memorial Baptist Church. Additionally, at the time of the
establishment of the LHD, there was
an estate owned by the
Congregation of Saint Vincent DePaul, a Roman Catholic order
commonly known as the Vincentian Fathers; the property was sold in
1984 to a private person.
(Exhibit A McCarroll Aff. ¶ 11).
Springfield created the McKnight LHD in
1976. Within its boundaries and subject to its
exterior controls are
Saint Peter’s Episcopal Church, Holy Temple Church, Christian Hill
Baptist
Church, Faith Baptist Church, and Huong Sun Meditation
Temple, a Buddhist group. (Exhibit A
McCarroll Aff. ¶ 12).
Springfield created the Lower Maple LHD
in 1977. Within its boundaries and subject to
its exterior controls
is South Congregational Church. (Exhibit A McCarroll Aff. ¶ 13). The
City
of Springfield created the Maple Hill LHD in 1977. Within its
boundaries and subject to its
exterior controls is The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as the Mormons.
Additionally, at the time of the establishment of the LHD, there was
Ursuline Academy, a school
operated by the Ursuline Sisters, a Roman
Catholic order. The property was sold in 1984 to the
Glorious Gospel
Church but is now owned by the Holyoke-Chicopee-Springfield Head
Start.
(Exhibit McCarroll Aff. ¶ 14).
The Massachusetts Cultural Resource
Information System (“MACRIS”) allows a search
of the
Massachusetts Historical Commission database for information on
historic properties and
areas in the Commonwealth. MACRIS reveals
that a number of communities in Western
Massachusetts have religious
institutions located within the boundaries of their respective Local
Historic Districts. (Exhibit A McCarroll Aff. ¶ 15).
In 1972, Longmeadow created a LHD,
which contains the First Church of Christ,
Congregational. (Exhibit
A McCarroll Aff. ¶ 16). In 1972, West Springfield created a LHD,
which contains the First Congregational Church. (Exhibit A McCarroll
Aff. ¶ 17). In 1975,
Lenox created a LHD, which contains Saint
Anne’s Roman Catholic Church, Church on the Hill,
and Trinity
Episcopal Church. (Exhibit A McCarroll Aff. ¶ 18). In 1979, Granby
created a LHD,
which contains the Immaculate Heart of Mary Roman
Catholic Church and the Church of Christ.
(Exhibit A McCarroll Aff.
¶ 19). In 1990, Belchertown created a LHD, which contains the Saint
Francis Roman Catholic Church, Hope United Methodist Church, and the
Congregational
Church. (Exhibit A McCarroll Aff. ¶ 20). In 1991,
Chicopee created a LHD, which contains the
Assumption of Mary Roman
Catholic Church, Holy Name of Jesus Roman Catholic Church,
Christ’s
Community United Church of Christ, and Grace Episcopal Church.
(Exhibit A
McCarroll Aff. ¶ 21). In 1994, Northampton created a
LHD, which contains the Saint Mary of
the Assumption Roman Catholic
Church, Blessed Sacrament Roman Catholic Church, and Saint
John’s
Episcopal Church. (Exhibit A McCarroll Aff. ¶ 22). In 1995, Great
Barrington created a
LHD, which contains the First Congregational
Church. (Exhibit A McCarroll Aff. ¶ 23).
Searching MACRIS for communities beyond
Western Massachusetts with local historic
districts in which was a
resource containing “catholic church” in its description and then
searching the Internet for church web sites or web presence,
McCarroll listed the results of that
research exercise produced the
list below from his Affidavit:
Our Lady of Hope Catholic Church in
Barnstable
Saint Andrew’s Catholic Church in
Billerica
Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Boston
Our Lady of the Cape Catholic Church in
Brewster
Our Lady Help of Christians Catholic
Church in Concord (closed 2004)
Saint Elizabeth’s Catholic Church in
Edgartown
Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Groton
(closed 2009)
Sacred Heart Catholic Church in
Lexington
Saint Joseph’s Catholic Church Lowell
(now a Shrine)
Mary Immaculate of Lourdes Catholic
Church in Natick
Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic
Church, Oak Bluffs
Saint Peter’s Catholic Church in
Plymouth
Saint James’ Catholic Church in Salem
Saint John’s Catholic Church in
Townsend
Saint Mary’s Catholic Church in
Uxbridge (Exhibit A McCarroll Aff. ¶ 24).
6. Springfield disputes Plaintiff’s
Statement, in paragraph 65: “Since 1972 when the first
historic
district was designated in Springfield, the practice of the City of
Springfield has been to
exclude church property from such districts.
Affidavit of John J. Egan, ¶ 22 (App. Ex. 5).”
Springfield does not specifically
exclude or include churches, or any other religious
property, in its
local historic districts. Properties that are designated as a
historical district are
selected based on “the historic and
architectural value and significance of the site, building or
structure, the general design, arrangement, texture, material and
color of the features involved,
and the relation of such features to
similar features of buildings and structures in the surrounding
area.”
7. Springfield disputes Plaintiff’s
Statement, in paragraph 67: “Placing these exterior
religious
symbols under government control through the creation of the Our Lady
of Hope
Historical District essentially freezes in place these
religious symbols, stain glass windows,
exterior crucifixes, and
carved Latin scriptural phrases so that it is not possible for the
Bishop to
exercise his responsibilities under Church doctrine,
scripture and Canon Law to safeguard and
respect the ecclesiastical
goods and other patrimony of the Roman Catholic Church which may
necessitate either removal or relocation (as part of a sale to a
third party), or other changes to
prevent their desecration or other
sordid use. Msgr. Bonzagni Affidavit, ¶ 24. (App. Ex. 3).”
Springfield asserts that the
Ordinance does not “freeze in place” any exterior religious
symbol, and the Bishop retains the ability to exercise his
responsibilities to “safeguard and
respect” these religious
goods.
8. Springfield disputes Plaintiff’s
Statement, in paragraph 68: “Placing control of the
religious
symbols now located on the exterior of Our Lady of Hope Church with
the government
of the City of Springfield directly interferes with
the Bishop’s exercise and discharge of his
doctrinal, scriptural
and Canon Law obligations to safeguard and respect the ecclesiastical
goods
and other patrimony of the Roman Catholic Church. Msgr.
Bonzagni Affidavit, ¶ 26.”
Although the Ordinance may
inconvenience the Bishop, it does not amount to such a
direct and
substantial obstacle to the Bishop’s “exercise and discharge of
his doctrinal, scriptural
and Canon Law obligations” that would
require RCB-owned property to be treated differently
from
non-religious property located within a historic district.
9. Springfield disputes Plaintiff’s
Statement, in paragraph 69: “The Ordinance designating
Our Lady of
Hope Church as an historic district imposes significant restrictions
on the RCB’s
use of its religious symbols and property. More
specifically, the historic designation prohibits the
RCB from any
construction or alteration “in any way that affects the exterior
architectural
features unless the [historic] commission shall first
have issued a certificate of appropriateness, a
certificate of non
occupancy or a certificate of hard-ship with respect to such
construction or
alteration,” which certificates may only be
obtained by requiring the RCB to file applications
seeking such
certificates “in such form as the [historic] commission may
reasonably determine,
together with such plans, elevations,
specifications, material and other information, including in
the
case of demolition or removal a statement of the proposed condition
and appearance of the
property, thereafter, as may be reasonably
deemed necessary by the [historic] commission to
enable it to make a
determination on the application.” (App. Ex. 8), G.L. c. 40C § 6.”
The Ordinance does not significantly
restrict the RCB’s use of its religious symbols and
property; it
merely requires the RCB to follow the statutory process applied to
every property subject to the Historic Districts Act. Plaintiff’s
reference to “certificates of non-occupancy” is
incorrect and
should refer to certificates of “non-applicability,” pursuant to
G.L. c. 40C.
Respectfully submitted,
DEFENDANTS: CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ET AL
Friday, August 13, 2010
City of Springfield Law Department
36
Court Street
Springfield, MA 01103
Tel. No. (413) 787-6085
Fax No.
(413) 787-6173s
Posts
