It’s about land use, not religion

In the editorial entitled “Zoning Religion” (Aug. 29), The Times plaintively asks, “How did Hancock Park become the center of a bitter struggle over Jewish identity?” In posing this question, the editors make clear their inability to grasp the significance of the recent decision handed down by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The struggle in Hancock Park is not about religious identity. It is about land use. The Times conspicuously fails to mention that the property at 3rd and Highland is zoned residential (R-1). The Times also fails to mention that there are literally dozens of synagogues located along La Brea Avenue, just four blocks west of the single-family residence that Congregation Etz Chaim now uses as a synagogue.

No one in Hancock Park wants to deny the members of Etz Chaim the right to worship in peace. We simply want the congregation to confine their activities to the immediately adjacent commercial areas that are properly zoned for institutional worship.

The League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates (LRNA) believes that residential neighborhoods are a vital cornerstone of the American experience. We are content-neutral on the issue of religion. We are determined to protect our neighborhoods from the incursion of commercial, industrial or other non-conforming uses that diminish the quiet enjoyment of our private homes as assured under city ordinance.

Local land use regulation is a vital function of municipal government. Under laws enacted by our city government, zoning variances can only be implemented after public hearing. When Congregation Etz Chaim approached the city for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), neighbors were notified and hearings were held. The CUP was denied. The congregation sued the city in state court. The state court upheld the legality of the city’s denial.

When the congregation continued to sue the city in federal court, there was a different and surprising result. Rather than defend its zoning laws, the city decided to enter a secret settlement agreement with Etz Chaim. The neighbors were not participants in the settlement discussion nor were they informed of its implementation.

The city can enact ordinances. The city can repeal or amend ordinances. But the city cannot violate its own ordinances by secretly entering legal settlement agreements that confer on litigious antagonists rights they are denied under the law. That’s the proper conclusion arrived at by the 9th Circuit Court.

The landmark circuit court decision protects citizens from the capricious exercise of extra-legal authority on the part of government officials. The decision has a great deal to say about due process and land use. It has nothing to do with Jewish identity, and the editors of The Times have disserviced their readers by blatantly misconstruing the issues at hand.

Leonard Hill is president of the League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates.

to read more about The Times’ Blowback feature.