Places of Worship and Land

Your editorial “Meeting High Cost of Housing Congregations “ (March 26) was long overdue. Land prices have been, and remain, a barrier to congregations interested in building a place of worship.

There are solutions, which you aptly covered. One in particular, revising zoning laws to allow churches to locate in industrial areas, is surely a best bet. Why? No disturbance to residential neighbors but close to most residential areas, close to adequate traffic facility, sports fields, cemeteries, meeting centers and ancillary buildings.

All this requires filling in of canyons, chopping ridge tops, removing oak groves and destroying riparian habitat. And all of this on a two-lane road, next to Cleveland National Forest, on a scenic corridor and 6 miles from the nearest freeway. The Foothill Corridor (I should say arterial, according to present plans) will not be in place for years.

This “community” church wants to build in a community of 3,000 people. Those 3,000 people are the community and have community plans. Those communities already have four places of worship of various denominations.

The property next door to this “mega-church” is proposed for a 1,000-seat worship facility. Instead of being a “community” church, its nucleus is located in the city of Irvine!

We can understand wanting a “place of your own.” It’s every church’s dream. We have difficulty, however, in understanding how such urban-sized facilities fit into a transition zone for rural “communities.”

Urban is urban and rural is rural.

As you stated, “government should (not) give religion special treatment.”

We wholeheartedly agree.

SHERRY LEE MEDDICK

President

Rural Canyon Residents Assn.