Guest Posting: An Open Letter to the RCBC

To the Rabbis of the RCBC:

For decades the Jewish community has lived in peace and tranquility with its non-Jewish neighbors in Teaneck. Jews serve the residents of Teaneck on the Town Council and many of its committees. We benefit from over two dozen kosher restaurants under your capable supervision. We are able to walk to many shuls on Shabbat within not one but two eruvim. We have a magnificent new mikvah. We have access to the best halachic minds on this side of the George Washington Bridge.

We also live in a town that is witnessing a chilul hashem of epic proportions. For years, Congregation Etz Chaim has been working surreptitiously to build a shul without going through the proper channels that ALL other shuls in Teaneck have followed. Their leaders have been at the center of controversy since day one of their founding and even before through acts that bordered - and possibly crossed the line - on outright fraud.

After Etz Chaim finally went through the correct process under pressure from neighbors to “do the right thing” and publicly stated that they would abide by the ruling of the Board of Adjustment they got the variance they applied for and then turned on the very Board that granted exactly what Etz Chaim had requested by suing them.

Etz Chaim claims that their suit is against the Board of Adjustment and not the neighbors but their suit IS against every single resident of Teaneck. The ramifications of suing the Board of Adjustment may very well negatively affect the relationship the Jews of Teaneck have with our non-Jewish neighbors for many years.

If Etz Chaim’s lawsuit had any merit, which it does not, it still would not be advisable to sue the Township for what they want. Had Etz Chaim followed the procedures for getting permission to create a shul everyone’s lives would have been very different today. The restrictions placed on Etz Chaim could have been appealed through the regular procedures in place and perhaps the Board of Adjustment would have decided that maybe some of the restrictions could be altered. But instead, Etz Chaim, “guns a blazing”, go on the offensive and attack the Board of Adjustment. The next shul in town, a new one looking to open its doors or an old one looking to expand, is going to have to apply for variances and follow the prescribed procedures but run the risk of being denied just because of the precedent Etz Chaim has set of how shuls and Orthodox Jews behave. The Board of Adjustment may reject the application because they know that the shul will do whatever they want anyway, after all Etz Chaim did.

The ends really never justify the means. Etz Chaim has tarnished the relationship between the Jews and non-Jews of Teaneck and has caused irreparable damage through a heinous chillul hashem. It is now up to the Rabbis of the RCBC to stand up, from the pulpit or through their pens, and actively and forcefully demand that Etz Chaim stop this chillul hashem immediately. It is time for the Rabbis of the RCBC to call on their member, Rabbi Daniel Feldman, to stop the chillul hashem that will have a real impact on their shuls and the continued growth of the Orthodox community in Teaneck for many years in the future. It is time for our Rabbinic leaders to lead and bring an end to the hurtful actions of one of its member shuls.

Sincerely,

Concerned Orthodox Jews of Teaneck

Biased Reporting

Courtesy of the Jewish Standard: Etz Chaim Lawsuit Alleges Teaneck Violated Shul's Constitutional Rights

I commented on the latest Jewish Standard gem of hard hitting unbiased journalism.

The comment is currently "up".

Mr. Lipowsky, you have written and researched a few news articles on Etz Chaim for the Jewish Standard. This is a well spun and a well sanitized piece. Etz Chaim wasn't pressured into the BOA's stipulations. Robert Erlich and Rabbi Daniel Feldman told Daniel Santacruz as reported by the Jewish Sandard as early as 8/28/2008 that all they want is exactly what the BOA granted Etz Chaim.

This isn't a case of restricted Religious Freedoms. Its all about strong arming Teaneck under the guise of discrimination to bypass the appeals process and opposition from the neighbors.

Its just another instance of Etz Chaim of Teaneck attempting to circumvent the rules. Magically Shaarei Orah, Beth Aaron and Rinat Yisrael had no issues following Township rules and waiting to get approval through proper channels.

Neighborly Love

Etz Chaim of Teaneck does not want to fight with their neighbors.

They really don't.

Etz Chaim of Teaneck doesn't want their neighbors to fight with them, either.

It became more obvious after reading today's Suburbanite. Here is the link to the article: Etz Chaim Files Lawsuit Against BOA

Some highlights:

• Etz Chaim of Teaneck, an Orthodox Jewish congregation at 554 Queen Anne Road, is suing the board of adjustment.
• Griggs Avenue resident, Janet Abbot a neighbor of the congregation, said that one of the restrictions imposed by the BOA was that Etz Chaim appoint a member of its congregation to serve as liaison with the neighbors. Abbot said that to the best of her knowledge, this has not occurred. "Nobody has contacted us," she said. She noted that except for a noise complaint, "Nothing untoward has happened," since the variances were granted.
• "The board's decision was fair because it recognized that Etz Chaim has a right to have a congregation and also recognized that they created a synagogue without going through the normal processes. The board institutionalized what they said they were already doing," she (Abbot) said.
• But Rif Campeas, another neighbor, was more outspoken. Campeas said that on at least one occasion since the variances were granted, a neighbor called the police because of excessive noise emanating from the congregation. "They said they would abide by the board of adjustment decision. The town has invested time and money, but Etz Chaim is never satisfied," Campeas said.
• In an interview, Etz Chaim President Robert Erlich and Akiva Shapiro of the law firm of Gibson Dunn in New York City, co-council in the case, emphasized that the suit is against the board of adjustment and not the neighbors. "Our relationship with the neighbors has been good and we hope that this suit doesn't affect that relationship," Erlich said.
• He (Erlich) noted that the dispute over noise involved a single incident that was resolved immediately and that the neighbor could have approached the congregation directly rather than calling the police. Erlich said that the congregation has not appointed a community liaison because it is taking the BOA's requirements as a whole and is working through them.

Let me add major points from Monday's article in the Bergen Record:

• Etz Chaim, which battled with several neighbors for years prior to getting approval from the town’s zoning board, asserted in a lawsuit filed in Bergen County Superior Court that the variances it had sought – including a request to have only six parking spaces, rather than the 21 required – were relatively minor in nature.
• A group of neighbors – some of whom had feuded with one of the members of Etz Chaim prior to the group’s establishment – complained to the town that the congregation should have applied for a house of worship permit.
• The suit claims the restrictions violate the group’s First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights, the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and state law. It seeks to have many of the conditions thrown out and to impose punitive and compensatory damages.
• The group’s lawyer, Akiva Shapiro, of New York-based Gibson Dunn, said his clients would welcome an out-of-court settlement.

Etz Chaim of Teaneck filed this lawsuit to get Teaneck to settle with them.

They do not want this to go to court.

Etz Chaim wants the leadership of Teaneck to feel the weight and pressure of a lawsuit based on the loss of religious freedoms, so they can suppress the Neighbors' rights to be heard.

There is no loss of religious freedom.

To quote Janet Abbot -

"The board's decision was fair because it recognized that Etz Chaim has a right to have a congregation and also recognized that they created a synagogue without going through the normal processes. The board institutionalized what they said they were already doing."

For more on this please read: It Must Be Real It's In Newspapers

Some Famous Bypasses

Coronary Bypass

Highway Bypass

Gastric Bypass

AND..........................................

Neighbor Bypass

Teaneck congregation appeals conditions placed on house of worship permit

Monday, January 10, 2011
BY JOSEPH AX
THE RECORD
STAFF WRITER
TEANECK — A Queen Anne Road congregation that received a house of worship permit last fall after months of controversial hearings has appealed several of the permit’s conditions, calling them arbitrary and unduly burdensome.

Etz Chaim, which battled with several neighbors for years prior to getting approval from the town’s zoning board, asserted in a lawsuit filed in Bergen County Superior Court that the variances it had sought – including a request to have only six parking spaces, rather than the 21 required – were relatively minor in nature.

By contrast, the congregation claimed, the board’s conditions “are vague and ambiguous on their face, largely have no connection to any legitimate land use concern, and are far more onerous than the conditions imposed on other, comparable secular and religious institutions.”

The case has sometimes delved into the murky definition of a “house of worship,” as the congregation holds services in a private residence.

Etz Chaim owns 554 Queen Anne Road, and the group’s rabbi, Daniel Feldman, lives at the home. The congregation received permission from the town to add a family room and to hold private prayer meetings there.

A group of neighbors – some of whom had feuded with one of the members of Etz Chaim prior to the group’s establishment – complained to the town that the congregation should have applied for a house of worship permit.

The town’s zoning official issued a cease and desist order in August 2008, and the congregation decided to apply for the permit rather than filing a lawsuit then. After a series of contentious hearings, the zoning board issued the permit – along with two dozen conditions – last fall.

Among the restrictions flagged in the lawsuit are a ban on using the outdoor space for celebrations, a limit on the number of religious services permitted during the week, a ban on outdoor signage and a requirement that participants leave the home an hour after services are finished on Saturday mornings, as well as others.

“Shackled by the onerous conditions imposed by the board, Etz Chaim is not able to proceed as a fully operational Orthodox Jewish house of worship,” the lawsuit reads.

The suit claims the restrictions violate the group’s First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights, the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and state law. It seeks to have many of the conditions thrown out and to impose punitive and compensatory damages.

The group’s lawyer, Akiva Shapiro, of New York-based Gibson Dunn, said his clients would welcome an out-of-court settlement.

Harold Ritvo, the zoning board attorney, did not return a call seeking comment. Rif Campeas, one of the neighbors who led the fight against Etz Chaim, declined to comment on the suit.

E-mail: ax@northjersey.com

Rutherford Institute Update

The Rutherford Institute represented Etz Chaim of Teaneck.

The Rutherford Institute describes it's mission:
"Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated.

The Rutherford Institute has emerged as one of the nation's leading advocates of civil liberties and human rights, litigating in the courts and educating the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting individual freedom in the United States and around the world.

The Institute’s mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms."

ONE YEAR ago I posted in Etz Chaim of Teaneck: Modern Day Robin Hoods?:
"Two things make Etz Chaim special, however. First is the unorthodox manner in which it remodeled the rabbi's residence to create worship space that technically may or may not have been what is commonly considered a synagogue, generating ill will in the process.

The second is the implied threat of a lawsuit against the town if permission is denied. Etz Chaim is represented by the Rutherford Institute, a prominent legal organization that takes cases to protect religious rights. Its 2008 annual report lists Etz Chaim as a "pre-litigation."

Etz Chaim doesn't follow Township rules and will claim that their "religious rights" were violated if their permission is denied."

This is the original article the Rutherford Institute posted on their website from the Jewish Standard.

Important Points:

• Feldman said he believes the prayer group is "among the most above-board and responsible, and we have taken every appropriate step to do everything by the book."
• The rabbi disputed the change-of-use argument, saying that of the 168 hours in a week, only five are devoted to religious services at the house, which are held Friday night and Saturday morning and afternoon.
• "That’s 3 percent of the time," he said. "It is our understanding, confirmed in two meetings with the township, that [a] prayer group in the house is a permitted residential use. Thus, we do not believe that the use has been changed in any way."
• Erlich said the group had filed an appeal to the zoning board to challenge "the interpretation of what they [the township] say is going on at 554 Queen Anne Road. They call it a house of worship [and] place of assembly [but] we call it a private prayer group."
• According to the letter, "[W]hen Rabbi Feldman first decided to have a private prayer group in his home, it was of the utmost importance to him that everything be done above-board and in accordance with local ordinances."
  The letter also explains that services are held on the "Jewish Sabbath and on Yamim Tovim/holidays."
• "We told the town from the beginning what we were doing, and they confirmed that it was acceptable," Feldman said. "We were not trying to hide anything."

The Rutherford Institute 2010 CASE SUMMARY REPORT doesn't include Etz Chaim of Teaneck as one of its clients. Even the Rutherford Institute doesn't consider BOA ruling as discriminating against Rabbi Feldman and Etz Chaim of Teaneck. Etz Chaim of Teaneck got exactly what they wanted and fought for.

Etz Chaim of Teaneck has overplayed their hand.

Can Opener Anyone?

Click me: Superior Court Bergen County on 12-17-2010