Highland Park Presbyterian’s Rev. Scates Writes Neighbors as Lot Plans are Prepped for P&Z
In today’s issue of Park Cities People, I’ve caught up with several parties involved in HPPC’s much-squabbled-over plan for a new parking lot, which will go before University Park’s planning and zoning commission in August. The issue made CBS 11 earlier this week — naturally, right before our story went to press.
In a letter sent yesterday to neighbors, HPPC’s Rev. Ron Scates had this to say about the lot (herein he references a “facts and perspectives sheet” that you can download as a PDF):
Dear HPPC Family,
The last project in the Forward by Faith campaign, the parking plaza, has received media attention and sparked debate within our community. We anticipate that this will continue over the coming months as we proceed with the planned development rezoning process with the city.
We expect that many of you may be asked questions about our plans from others. Should you need additional information, or a refresher, we attach a Facts and Perspectives document that is provided to give you more explanation and details. You can also view the final design in the Welcome Center and on the church web site at www.hppc.org/forwardbyfaith.
Communication with our neighbors began in March of 2009 when we presented to them the first concept for the parking plaza. Since then we have met multiple times with neighbors, modifying our plans where possible to incorporate into the design our understanding of their concerns. We slowed down our design process, we stopped and backed up so we could include more input from our neighbors, and we included two neighbors on the final design team. Several meetings were held with neighbor representatives, some who are members of HPPC. Several features were added or modified as a direct result of the interaction with our neighbors. While these revisions added significantly to the total cost, we believe the changes improve the overall plaza design and function, and its fit with our neighborhood.
The parking spots will serve to encourage believers to worship in community as Christ commands us. The parking spots will serve to encourage believers and members to invite a friend to join them. The parking spots will serve to beckon those who are broken and weary to seek comfort in the arms of the Church. That is how we see the parking plaza – it will enhance the mission of HPPC of “Making Disciples of Jesus Christ.” We will be a more accessible and welcoming church as a result of this parking plaza.
Although we have tried our best to develop a design that is supported by the neighborhood, we realize that some remain unhappy with our decisions. Some of our good neighbors disagree with us about the benefits of the plan to the church and the community. We have heard and acknowledge their concern. After much deliberation, our hope is that this view will be transformed in time to one of neighborly understanding, acceptance, and appreciation. In keeping with our long tradition and place in this unique neighborhood, we believe this parking plaza will increase our ability to minister to the community while extending the beauty of our architecture to the West Block in a manner that blends into the neighborhood.
In the attached Facts and Perspective sheet, we have answered many of the questions we have been hearing about the parking plaza. We have also provided clarification based on some of the mistaken information we have heard.
Please join us in thanking the Lord for all He has done in this season of our church’s history where we have moved Forward by Faith.
Rev. Dr. Ron Scates
Senior Pastor Ben Brown, Clerk of Session
Thoughts?
28 comments to "Highland Park Presbyterian's Rev. Scates Writes Neighbors as Lot Plans are Prepped for P&Z"
Uh, Scates, that means you don’t give a friggin flip what the community wants, you’ll do what you want.
God wants more concrete. Jesus wants a parking lot.
Using your same logic, why don’t you appreciate, understand and accept the neighborhood you are in and adapt to it?
Scates, God is watching you…do the right thing.
It’s a parking lot. Call it what it is.
I LOVE that line! Tying in the fact that Christ commands them to pray with building a parking lot (plaza). Genius. So, basically, Christ is commanding them to build a parking lot (plaza). Never new Christ was so concerned with logistics.
I have no problem with people who disagree with the issue but please do not call Rev. Scates names or say he doesn’t care. That is a lie and makes you look like a fool.
How did they survive all these years without a monster new parking lot?
This is an ego driven church expansion arms race with the Unitarians…HPPC has parking lot envy!
All in disagreement should honk their car horns every time they pass this pompous neighbor!
>>>
The parking spots will serve to encourage believers to worship in community as Christ commands us. The parking spots will serve to encourage believers and members to invite a friend to join them. The parking spots will serve to beckon those who are broken and weary to seek comfort in the arms of the Church. That is how we see the parking plaza – it will enhance the mission of HPPC of “Making Disciples of Jesus Christ.”
>>>
He’s explicitly stating that (1) the plan is to build significantly more spaces than they currently need, in the hope that extra asphalt will convince more people to become parishioners, and (2) he’s laying the blame for this kooky plan at the feet of none other than Jesus Christ, Civil Engineer.
Has anyone with common sense ever chosen a church based on the availability of extra parking spaces? Does anyone with common sense think Jesus cares about parking lots? For that matter, what kind of a congregation wants new members who base their worship decision on parking convenience? Why not cut to the chase and install speakers at each space, like a drive-in theater, so people don’t have to get out of their cars at all?
One in is about that 70 to 80-year old oak tree that is adjacent to Westwick Road. Their plans show it with a very small canopy, or drip line, when in fact the top of the tree spans at least an area of 2 1/2 times that in diameter. We all learned in elementary school that a tree’s roots are at least as expansive as the branches shown on top. Right now the tree feeds off the backyard of the church-owned house on the corner of University and Westwick. It requires the grass in that yard to take in water for its very survival. When the concrete is poured for that parking lot, it will be the beginning of the end of that old, beauty.
It may live for a few years. Not long ago we witnessed an old dying giant being taken down in our neighbor’s backyard. The contractor building on the lot had only left a very small amount of grass underneath it. It was a larger tree than on Westwick, and it only lasted about 4 years. The owners were very saddened, but the fatal deed was done before they even bought the house.
Just another terrible aspect of this complex re-zoning, church expansion situation, for anyone who loves old trees to consider. Remember, “…ONLY GOD CAN MAKE A TREE.”
http://www.hppc.org/files/facts-and-perspectives.pdf
So sorry, all!
A fool(your word, not mine) would be someone that swallows the party line and obeys and adheres to whatever they have been fed.
They boast in it about the neighbors being involved in designing the lot, but there were only 2 neighbors involved on the Design Task Force. One is a woman who is for the lot and whose house is not affected by the expansion. The other is a long-time member who opposed the lot, and was, in her words “stared down” by the other team members. She cast a “no” vote for the current plans, and then stopped attending the last meetings because of the hostility towards her.
The other meetings they brag about were hardly collaborative. They were the rest of the neighbors saying repeatedly, over the course of a year, “we don’t want a parking lot in ANY form!” They also don’t mention in their propaganda that there are many HUNDREDS of UP residents saying “no” on a petition.
When I stated to Rev. Scates in May that we believed this was not really about pouring a parking lot, but rather re-zoning the entire block for future expansion, his response was, “Well, if the church never expanded, we wouldn’t be sitting in the Hunt building right now!” I also asked him about the other church parking lot he installed at his Baltimore church. He commented that “those neighbors were in an uproar, as well.” Residential and park lands were covered over for that one. Please Google Map it and marvel at the ugly giant slab of asphalt and few puny bushes that turned out to be! (7308 York Rd., satellite mode, the most NW of 5 lots.)
He clearly does believe that he is making parking for Jesus. It’s his history. What he is failing to understand is that this selfish pursuit will drive people away from his church, religion and faith in great numbers, as the children and friends of the neighbors of HPPC will never forget their transgressions upon their homes, neighborhood, and inheritances. Big mistakes being made here, church members!
We are asking that HPPC members to reconsider and PLEASE let stand an entire block of houses, the first built in 1923, and not re-zone it. Right now they are requesting a parking lot, but if the block is rezoned, I suspect that 10 or 15 years from now that block won’t have a single house left. This block is surrounded by homes and parkland, unlike most churches in UP. It is in the heart of, and on the “showboat” and ONLY boulevard in UP.
We ask that HPPC members (half of which live outside the park cities) please walk those extra 1-2 minutes, for most only once a week, and preserve the integrity of this beautiful neighborhood.
carpooler, would you honestly want a block of homes rezoned in front of your house? I believe Rev. Scates answered honestly when he replied, “No, I wouldn’t,” a year ago. He has since said he changed his mind.
The zoning and planning commission got several different plans from the developer on proposed build-outs. None of them made the approval of the neighbors. I can’t remember what the commission’s initial report was but I think they were leaning towards approving it. In a last ditch effort, the neighborhood brought in an arborist from the State of Texas. The property was blessed with a variety of trees, some were quite large. The arborist made an estimate of the type and quality of trees on the property and made the assessment that several were close to being “state trees” or trees that were large enough to be in the category that deserved (but not mandated by the state) protection. The developer went back, modified his design and was able to retain 90% of the trees the arborist had pointed out, including the ones she considered most valuable. Again, I don’t recall the P & Z recommendations, but it was obvious from subsequent discussion that the city council wanted nothing to do with the controversy. They had several discussions at various meetings with the residents, the property owner’s reps and the developers. They were leaning in the direction of the residents. I remember watching community access cable of the meeting the night the council was to vote. A number of people spoke. The developer and the residents spoke. The arborist gave a very interesting speech which the developer came back and explained how his plan would save most of the trees. Finally, in a twist that was as unexpected as any Perry Mason plot, The son of the property owner spoke. After he wheeled his mother up to the podium in a wheel-chair he said, and I am paraphrasing that his mother needed money for her continued retirement. He also said mom could not afford the property taxes on her fixed income, even at the lower rate that agricultural land was assessed. That if the Council voted against the proposal to rezone that he would have no choice but to take a work crew onto his mom’s property. That work crew would CHOP DOWN EVERY TREE, PULL UP EVERY STUMP, AND PLANT A CROP OF ALFALFA that he could harvest at the end of the growing season to pay for her taxes and continued living expenses. You could tell that he meant it.
Of course, everyone was aghast. But there was nothing that could be done. It was zoned agriculture and the property owner was well within her legal rights to do exactly that. The council passed the zoning change with the stipulations about tree preservations as outlined in the developers last proposal.
People have the right to their property. They have a right to use it as they deem appropriate within the framework of various legal statutes and city, state and federal zoning issues. We could get into a discussion about how the Religious Land Use laws are fair or unfair. We could also do that with various EPA or endangered species laws. Just discussing zoning in our community, several churches have taken residential property and converted it to parking. The most egregious I think was St. Michael’s when it turned out a number of residents of Frederick’s Square apartments. How many of the detractors of HPPC are members of St. Michael’s, UPUMC, PCBC or the Church of Christ? Did you object to your pastors and trustees when plans were drawn for your renovation? Are you being hypocritical? I’m just asking, because I think you would be hard pressed to find a church in this community that didn’t do something with their property that someone didn’t object to. How many of you have stopped going to your church because they built that parking lot even if you did object to it?
HPPC is going to get its “parking plaza”. It is best that the HPPC neighborhood get on board with the idea and start lobbying for the best deal. And @bobs mom; if you want to save the tree why don’t you ask HPPC if they will ensure its continued health? I am sure that they would be amenable to the idea.
With regard to the various arguments that seem to be recurring in this aforementioned venue, it seems that otherwise good libertarians are ignoring the very characteristics that make such a political philosophy functional. Yes, the “west block” belongs to the church as physical property. And yes, the church has the right to do with said property what it pleases. But, as Locke explains lucidly in his treatment of property, it is never the intent of a rational worldview to ascribe absolute property rights to any party, for such a statement would be nothing less than anarchist in nature. In any theory of personal or even corporate liberty, excluding those that propose anarchy as a valid societal paradigm, one’s rights to his own property cease when they become “to the prejudice of his neighbor,” as Locke so eloquently states. Nozick, in his discussion of distributive justice, uses different words to express the same idea: “The central core of the notion of a property right in X…is the right to determine what shall be done with X; the right to choose which of the constrained set of options concerning X shall be realized or attempted” (my emphasis). He goes on to state very clearly that any set of alternatives for the use of property is a constrained set of alternatives, whose limits are determined by the society surrounding said property. Many of those in favor of the parking lot have conveniently but altogether mistakenly elided the word “constrained” from these sentences.
If I possess an axe, I most certainly may not do whatever I please with it, to the contrary of what James Tucker seems to suggest in his post above. Yes, I may use it to accomplish tasks or even simply let it lean against a wall, but no one would claim I have the right to sink it into my neighbor’s chest. If the church possesses a residential-zoned block, it may rent the houses, sell the houses, or do with this block whatever it pleases, within the constraints set forth by the established zoning and the wellbeing of the surrounding community. Yet James Tucker et al. say quite distastefully that it also has the right to use its property in a way that diminishes my home value by at least fifteen percent and forces me to look at a brick wall across the street instead of two houses. That negative externality is clearly beyond any sane limit on the alternatives of use inherent in the property rights the church loves to invoke. The argument that the church has the right to do whatever it wants with its own property, including rezone it and add a parking lot, is absolutely untenable; and any rational person would admit it as such.
Wow. Couple of shrubs.
$1.5 million dollars can send 4180 kids to school in India for a year. Just one example of a better use of your money.
First, we’re not talking about a person’s life here we are discussing property. There is a difference, regardless of what some of these philosophers will postulate . When you bring in an apple and oranges argument where the comparisons are life vs anything else you discredit the rest of your premise.
I can’t get into a debate with you about the philosophy surrounding property rights because frankly I don’t know the works of Nozick. I also don’t remember the works of Locke enough to discuss his thoughts. All I am left with is my opinion.
You quote Nozick as saying “any set of alternatives for the use of property is a constrained set of alternatives, whose limits are determined by the society surrounding said property.”
The word “society” doesn’t equate exclusively to “neighbors” or more specifically in this case, the 30 or so families whose homes surround the church. So the “limits” of the “set of alternatives” is a lot broader then what you speak of. Society can also mean the church membership, its employees, or the other citizens of a town or city. Zoning is also a constraint that is changeable and dynamic based on the needs of the property owner or the government. If the two can agree then it is changed. We know, from recent court cases in eminent domain, that governments themselves only weigh the rights of property owners and the surrounding denizens based on whether their need out weighs the need of a community or the government. Governments themselves no longer feel “constrained” by tradition or by the will of the majority of the people in a neighborhood when it comes to its own needs.
I understand the anger you must feel at the potential loss of value and aesthetic appeal. I had a home on Lakewood Blvd. The homeowner behind us decided to put a 2 story garage in his backyard. A quarter of our backyard became shaded 24/7. The view was that of a brick tenement building. No amount of discussion with the neighbor or the City of Dallas changed one iota of their plan. We had to live with it. Why? Because property owners have rights that sometimes subjugate their neighbor’s rights.
The real problem in this situation isn’t found in the esoteric discussions of various economic or political philosophies. The real problem is that we have allowed the Bill of Rights to be hijacked. The simple language of the establishment clause was twisted in an attempt to remove religion from the public square. The more we twist the establishment clause the more convoluted the laws governing religious liberty become. If you want religion out of our public institution than conversely the public institutions have less right to involve themselves in religion. The Religious Land Use act is just such a convolution. Now you have churches able to do pretty much whatever they want with the property they own.
The council would be well-advised to remember that the homeowners in the immediate vicinity of the church are – let’s face it – of a different economic and political caliber than the hodgepodge of renters, SMU students, absentee landlords, shut-ins, cat hoarders, young people and duplex dwellers who populate most of the proposed SMU parking district between Hillcrest and the middle school. As a proud member of this latter group, I am fairly sure that the council will impose the new parking district and all its associated fees and hassles in spite of our opposition. The HPPC homeowners, on the other hand, are more likely to attend city council meetings and organize an effective opposition to the latest schemes before the council. They can withhold campaign donations and blackball council members, spouses and allies (including their UP Community League patrons) from business deals, non-profit boards and trendy committees. They can generally make life uncomfortable for the council if the homeowners don’t get the vote they want.
I hope it doesn’t come to this, but it probably will. I’m naturally pessimistic in that way.
I wish the people of UP would take a moment to register that what makes the park cities unique and great, are the old trees, older homes, yards, parks and ABSENCE OF UGLY PARKING LOTS in great size and number. We don’t have parking lots (other than small teacher lots) for our 6 public schools and we parents are more than happy to walk a block for school volunteering or events. Can you imagine installing large slabs of concrete around each of our 6 schools, just so parents could walk a minute less once a week? Crazy, right?
I, too, share your pessimism when it comes to what the P&Z and City Council might decide. They have a history of letting churches run wild, especially as of late. I just went over and looked at the UP Methodist lot. Wow, that one is sure ugly, with those dumpsters right off the street and those pathetic plants. That’s what i fear we will end up with over here. That and some giant 4 story buildings ten years down the road when HPPC gets the money.
Neil–I lived very happily, as a renter, in YOUR neck of the woods for about 10 years. I would like to think that as a young working woman, I would have been just as concerned about the demise of my neighborhood, the one I was paying extra to live in (compared to greater Dallas) as I am now, a middle-aged homeowner whose property value is about to be reduced. I always loved living in UP. But what makes it great may not be here forever, if we keep losing homes and trees to asphalt.
Please show up at the P&Z meeting on August 10, 5 pm, I think, and voice your opposition. We need all the help we can get! Thanks again.
“They have a history of letting churches run wild, especially as of late.”
Their hands are tied. The city council can limit some of things HPPC want to do, but not all of the things. You refuse to acknowledge that there are legal (and ultimately financial) hurdles to what you are asking the city council to do. Since you don’t wish to believe some of things I’ve posted on this subject, here is the Department of Justice’s posting on the Religious Land Use act:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/rluipaexplain.php
Your only hope may lie in the fact that Obama’s Civil Rights division is no longer representing the rights of all the people, just certain minority groups like the New Black Panthers. Since you don’t mind slandering people to get your way you could go to the city council and tell them the HPPC is a white church and doesn’t deserve protection. You would have good company as Wick Allison, the publisher of Park Cities People, seems to agree with you.
Some of us are choosing to believe that, for once, this might not go the expected route. Not everyone interprets RLUIPA in the same manner, and other communities have successfully fought and won similar battles against churches.
Leave a Reply