|
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
|
|
I adopted a forthright stance against Kol Ami locating itself on a primary road, branching from a cul-de-sac. This angered the leadership of the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress, the Boards of which had endorsed this project. When I appeared before both bodies, I noted that few members thereof had actually visited the site. Thus, I sided with the Zoning Board (prompting accusations that I was a Jewish Anti-Semite). The Kol Ami position invoked RLUIPA [The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act], which was interpreted (also, by a Federal Judge, initially) as favoring the Synagogue's ability to indiscriminately choose its locale. My position (validated by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals) was that RLUIPA did not afford such powers to any religious institution; rather, it was a bulwark against discrimination against them. The following was written a half-decade ago, and it is provided to convey a "flavor" of the debate. Ultimately, Kol Ami purchased the Rodeph Shalom Suburban Campus and, presumably, is content.
*
A summary of my perspective on this controversial issue may be gleaned from the Testimony (and associated "Graphic") that were presented to the Abington Board of Commissioners on 1/10/2002. As had been predicted, the Commissioners delayed consideration of this issue during the month of March, pending legal evaluation (3rd Circuit). * Kol Ami Adherents argue this is a "religious" issue. Neighbors opposed to their use of this property as a public synagogue argue this is a "zoning" issue. If it is merely accepted that it has both components, then it is Kol Ami's burden to satisfy both "legs of the proof." It cannot satisfy fundamental zoning requirements and, therefore, it was definitely not anti-Semitic for Abington to oppose this application. Although I have already elucidated my "biases," numerous
individuals inquired after I testified on 1/10/2002 as to why a Jewish
physician "cares" about what transpires, here. First, I felt
it vital to defend the Township against charges of anti-Semitism.
Second, I am animated by antipathy towards demagoguery. Third, I am
angry that the American Jewish Committee's Executive Committee
"decided" this issue BEFORE it was presented to the AJC
Board...without hearing from both sides of the controversy. Fourth, I am
disheartened by the dishonest testimony provided by Kol Ami's Expert (during
the coerced August Zoning Board Hearing) invoking Beth David (located at the
end of a driveway) as a precedent for Kol Ami's desire to locate at the neck
of a cul-de-sac. [It is my understanding that a true precedent exists;
when Mishkan Shalom sought the Rizzo Estate in Chestnut Hill, it was rebuffed;
it just moved to Roxborough.] Fifth, I am dismayed that Kol Ami
adherents who testified AFTER my presentation failed to refute the contents
thereof (specifically, Mr. David Sloviter). Sixth, the recent
"PR-push" by Kol Ami was accompanied by imbalanced reporting (as was
documented in my Testimony) that required "correction." [The
elitism inherent in the Inquirer's "million-dollar homes"
reference was particularly irksome.] Seventh, I don't respond well to
threats (such as that by Kol Ami issued last night regarding the remote
prospect that the entire Zoning Law would be ruled unconstitutional).
Eighth, Kol Ami has held events on the Robert Road site--contrary to the
pending status of its application--impugning its credibility regarding
honoring future commitments. Ninth, it has not pursued other available
properties in Abington (confirmed via a conversation last night with a member
of Kol Ami's site selection committee, who hadn't been apprised of the two
sites cited in my August letter). Tenth, as was elucidated in the
"Public Statement" issued by the Abington Commissioners, the
Township has been misportrayed as unreasonable, unjustified and unmoving; it
has been consistent, courageous and correct.
A synagogue is trying to situate itself in a 100% residential neighborhood. This has stimulated a controversy that has been portrayed (by Kol Ami's adherents) as having national implications. The letter written by my mother has been published in-full by the Times Chronicle and in-essence by the Philadelphia Inquirer; and the Jewish Exponent. It was generated following publication of the following letter-to-the-editor--
--because this was released FOLLOWING an agreement
that Murray Friedman would "investigate" the issue (and acquire both
sides).
This is the article that triggered the call to the
AJC--
--because it had been "put to bed" on
Monday (at the latest), as had been input provided to the Exponent.
And, speaking of the Exponent, a series of
articles has been written on this topic, most recently--
and
--and these illustrate the intensity of the
campaign to achieve this endpoint.
The original Inky story is a sobering analysis of
the problem--
--and it is clear that this story has demonstrated
"legs" in all three newspapers.
This is another rendition of the story published
in the Inky--
--which corroborated prior (synagogue-oriented)
versions.
The most recent effort of Kol Ami to bypass the Zoning Board failed,
as its trial approaches (7/24/2001). The following was "blast" e-mailed on 7/19/2001: Briefs were exchanged on Tuesday, with Abington Township's oriented as I had anticipated a week ago, immediately after the judicial opinion had been issued. Basically, if it is felt the Zoning Board should have applied a particular facet of the ordinance (special exception), then it can accept remand to do so. Of course, that the key facets of "special exception" were covered by the denial of a variance and the refusal to honor the Religious Land Use law (noise, pollution, traffic) ... this was ignored by the judge. And that the Board acted properly because the Ordinance didn't include religious institutions ... this was ignored by the judge. Nevertheless, not withstanding the claims of the Kol Ami "side" of this battle, the judge didn't order that there was "no controlling authority" in this setting, particularly when one recognizes that the case had yet to "reach" the factual record. All key documents (except for the parties' responses to the order and the pretrial motions) have been uploaded on the following Web-Site, although the reader is cautioned against swallowing the one-sidedness thereof.
|
|
To contact me--Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.--just send an e-mail (rsklaroff@comcast.net).
|