It was not discrimination but equal application of the state land-use law that led planning officials to refuse to let a Maui church build a chapel on Kula agricultural land, a federal judge was told yesterday. Equality of law cited
in Maui church caseBy Mary Adamski
madamski@starbulletin.com"The law applies to everyone. ... It doesn't target religion, churches, religious belief," said Maui Corporation Counsel James Takayesu in a hearing yesterday before federal District Judge Samuel P. King.
"Fire safety is not a red herring; drought is a problem" in upcountry Maui, he said, repeating one of the arguments against the development.
He was one of three Maui county attorneys who appeared in the Honolulu federal court to answer Hale O Kaula's arguments that its constitutional rights to free exercise of religion and free speech were violated. The Maui Planning Commission last year denied a special-use permit for a chapel at the church's Anuhea Street property.
Church members carry on agricultural operations but have been told by a former Maui planning official that they are not to pray or worship at the site, said David Jenkins, a church elder.
"We'll do anything required by the county in order to worship and pray on our property," he said.
About 60 church members from Oahu and Maui attended the hearing.
King was asked to grant a preliminary injunction to stop the county from enforcing the land-use law requirement. He took the question under advisement after a six-hour hearing.
The case has national implications, according to attorneys with a Washington, D.C., law firm who represent the church. It is one of several lawsuits across the nation attempting to apply a new federal law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, in overturning municipal or state agencies' decisions.
The Hawaii case is unique "because of the circumstances concerning a church use on agricultural land," said Roman Storzer of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Storzer argued the federal law provides there must be "compelling government interest" to deny a church land use request, and only the "least restrictive" action may be taken. "There are less restrictive things than banning religious speech," he told King.
Maui County has asked King to declare the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 unconstitutional. Takayesu said that in crafting the act, Congress tried to codify numerous Supreme Court decisions, but it "switched the burden ... shifted it, flipped it over and imposed it in a different area."
King seemed to agree with him as he engaged in verbal sparring with church attorneys and Adam Szubin, a U.S. Justice Department attorney here to defend the constitutionality of the law.