Report comment to moderator

Then the law should address the number of cars. As I said before the reason for the cars is none of anyones business.

Report comment to moderator

It does sound to me like “religious assembly” is defined too vaguely in the law. If somebody’s using their house as a church or a synagogue or Buddhist temple or mosque or whatever, that’s not practical for a residential neighborhood, especially if it catches on and becomes popular.

But I fully agree, if it’s 10 or 15 people gathering for an informal Bible study and discussion, that should just be considered someone having some friends over. I do hope they will revise the definition to make that clear.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

According to the San Diego County zoning regulations, “religious assembly” does indeed require a major use permit if it takes place in a structure zoned for residential use.

HOWEVER, religious assembly is defined as: “religious services involving public assembly such as customarily occurs in synagogues, temples and churches.”

So now it sounds like a case of overzealous enforcement. It sounds like the law is aimed at people creating actual home churches that could draw dozens of people, not a small discussion group. So ok, I believe the story now, but I seriously doubt it will lead anywhere. I’d bet the county will drop it and maybe refine the wording to prevent a recurrence.

I think that because the other activities that require the major use permit include things such as providing parking services, community recreation or a lodge or fraternal assembly. It’s clearly intended to control large numbers of people packing into a space that wasn’t meant to accommodate so many.

It still isn’t religious persecution.

The various residential zones and the lists of activities that require permits in each one is here:
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/zoning/z2000.pdf

The definition of “religious assembly” is section 1370 here:
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/zoning/z1000.pdf

Report comment to moderator

I already said, and since nobody ever seems to pay attention, I’ll say it again: IF the county targeted this group specificially because it was a religious gathering, that’s clearly unconstitutional and should be laughed out of court, if it ever even gets that far. And if that is the case, it will create a truckload of deserved bad PR.

But I believe it is much more likely that it truly is just about traffic flow in a residential neighborhood, where 15 or 20 cars parking on a regular basis can disrupt things for all the neighbors. I do not really believe that the officer asked those questions. I think if it was a book club or a poker game that was drawing that many visitors every single week, the same rules would apply.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

The official wasn’t there and didn’t hear the actual questions, but I still don’t believe the pastor’s account. He says the officer asked “Do you say ‘praise the Lord’” and “Do you say ‘Amen?’”

That’s a very unnatural and specific-sounding way to get at it. It would be much more likely he would just have asked whether it was a religious meeting. I mean, what if it were a Quaker group, or some other Christian group that’s much less likely to use “praise the Lord” as a common phrase? Or a non-Christian religion?

The other important thing, in terms of judging the effects on the neighborhood, would be whether it’s a frequent regular thing or less often. Once a week is obviously more of an effect than once a month or twice a year.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator