Norwalk Rejects Proposed Hindu Temple

After a sometimes emotional three-hour public hearing that touched on neighborhood quality, religious freedom and ethnic discrimination, the Norwalk City Council on Tuesday night refused a Hindu group permission to build a temple next to two Christian churches in a residential neighborhood.

For months the proposal has divided neighborhood residents who oppose the temple and those who believe the Hindus have a right to a build their place of worship on land they purchased last year for $630,000.

With an audience of more than 300 people dominated by opponents--many wearing badges and carrying signs reading “Preserve Our Neighborhood”--the council voted 3 to 1 to side with critics who argued that the temple would become a West Coast attraction for Hindus to the detriment of the neighborhood.

About 30 Hindu families had proposed demolishing a vacant house at Pioneer Boulevard and Ferina Street and building their $1.2-million temple on an acre of land next to two long-established Christian churches.

Hindu leader Natoo A. Patel and other temple members were clearly disappointed and angered by the council’s decision. “I’m shocked, frustrated,” he said. “Those guys are sitting there with their heads in the sand.”

The lawyer for the group said it will go to court in an attempt to compel the city to issue the permit.

Attorney Arnold K. Graham said Norwalk must grant the permit because the project complies with city codes and the Hindus have a right to use their property and worship in the city.

“This is a case of our clients making every effort to comply with the code,” he said.

However, Assistant City Atty. Mike Estrada said such a permit is not an automatic right. “Even though something is permitted, under certain circumstances it may not be appropriate,” he said. “There is no such thing as a (permit) you must approve simply because they meet all the codes.”

The Planning Commission denied the permit in March and the Hindus appealed to the council. The council rejected arguments by the group that the temple is being built for a small branch of Hinduism with a limited membership.

The group contends that 92 parking spaces planned for the temple site would accommodate worshipers, and the adjoining neighborhood would not experience traffic or parking problems because vehicular access would be restricted to Pioneer.

“This temple will be a place of worship and there is no need to expand the temple beyond what we propose,” said Patel, who presented what he said were 1,021 signatures of residents who favor the temple. Patel said 30 families have put up their life savings to build the temple.

But Mayor Robert J. Arthur said the temple would be “a regional church, not a local church, serving the needs of people throughout Southern California.” He cited traffic problems the city has had with other churches, including another Hindu temple that he said drew “tens of thousands of people” during the visit of a holy man several years ago.

Councilwoman Grace F. Napolitano said there are no guarantees “that there won’t be an impact on special holidays or visitations by special people.”

Councilman Michael Mendez broke with his colleagues, calling for the neighborhood and the Hindus to resolve their differences. He voted against denying the permit.

Several speakers, who traveled from as far away as Calabasas and Moreno Valley, supported the temple. They characterized the Indian community as educated, peaceful, moral people with strong family values and said temple members would improve, rather than harm, the neighborhood.

While council members and temple critics denied that discrimination is a factor in the controversy, some temple supporters implied that the Hindus were singled out by people who are threatened by their non-Western customs.