Pastor Facing Criminal Charges

[Jazzy]

A pastor in Ohio is facing charges after he opened the doors of his church to the homeless.

As reported by WBTV, pastor Chris Avell of Dad’s Place, a church he founded in Bryan, Ohio, has been slapped with 18 zoning violations after offering his church to anyone in need of a place to sleep or get out of the cold.

Back in November, Avell was contacted by the Bryan City Zoning Commission, who told the pastor the building is prohibited from allowing people to eat, wash clothes, or sleep on the property due to it being zoned as a "central business." Avell ignored the letter, which resulted in law enforcement returning to Dad's Place in December to issue violations.

Full article

---

A church can't offer shelter to someone who is freezing or hungry?

Do you think he should be facing criminal charges? (Why/Why Not)

 

[Stravinsk]

I'm not sure a full and accurate picture is being painted. For me, it comes down to whether the city has offered/been able to/ provide a service for these residents in the very cold climate of Ohio in winter. It looks like they took some steps, but who knows for sure:

https://www.cityofbryan.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/press-release.pdf

 

[Lamb]

The Canadian government has shown since covid happened that it isn't kind toward Christians. This is about control because it certainly isn't about being kind to others and showing love/grace.

 

[tango]

It seems like the kind of situation where the powers that be would really rather not deal with someone doing what they should be doing, and finding a rule to stop it rather than doing their job.

I vaguely recall news articles about one of the earlier internet porn sites that was essentially college accommodation for young attractive female students which was free of charge, but there were webcams in the bedrooms, bathrooms etc. The ideas was the women could have free accommodation but people could subscribe to watch them in areas that would normally be private. All sorts of legal avenues were tried to shut the operation down and most of them failed - the students were legal adults, had freely consented to the presence of the webcams etc etc etc, and if I recall the city ended up shutting them down using zoning laws because technically it was a business in a residential only area.

In this situation, on the face of it, it appears the city doesn't want the church providing for the homeless so they are trying to stop it happening. Perhaps the city would rather collect the bodies of the homeless once they froze to death. I guess it's one way of reducing the homeless population.

 

[NewCreation435]

The Canadian government has shown since covid happened that it isn't kind toward Christians. This is about control because it certainly isn't about being kind to others and showing love/grace.

This happened in Ohio, which isn't in Canada.

I don't think he should be facing criminal charges because he should respect the law of the government and work with the government not against it. HIs church could have worked with an existing shelter and help them rather than trying to do it himself or try to get the zoning changed so that he could legally do this

 

[tango]

This happened in Ohio, which isn't in Canada.

I don't think he should be facing criminal charges because he should respect the law of the government and work with the government not against it. HIs church could have worked with an existing shelter and help them rather than trying to do it himself or try to get the zoning changed so that he could legally do this

It's great in theory to work with other groups but often it ends up being one set of policies against another.

Where I live it seems there are homeless shelters but if you're homeless and have an animal they won't let you keep the animal with you. Which in a way is reasonable enough - you can't have a homeless shelter turning into a dog shelter along the way, but it does mean that if you do have a dog you're left with the choice of losing your companion or staying on the street.

Whatever the wording of the rules it's pretty sad when the law says you're not allowed to freely offer a warm space to people in need. It's pretty sad when the law says you're not allowed to help your fellow man. These days it sometimes seems that the Good Samaritan would have been prosecuted for failing to check some box or another along the process of helping the guy in desperate need.

 

[Albion]

Whatever the wording of the rules it's pretty sad when the law says you're not allowed to freely offer a warm space to people in need.

Well, let's take a quick look from the other side.

Is it the contention of the church and its supporters that a city should not have any zoning laws? What, for instance, if this church were in a residential area, which many churches are? Bear in mind that according to the news article, there is basically no limit on who can live in the church, for almost any reason, and for an indefinite length of time.

 

[tango]

Well, let's take a quick look from the other side.

Is it the contention of the church and its supporters that a city should not have any zoning laws? What, for instance, if this church were in a residential area, which many churches are? Bear in mind that according to the news article, there is basically no limit on who can live in the church, for almost any reason, and for an indefinite length of time.

What's wrong with people residing in a residential area? Are there limits on who may reside in a private residence, or for what reason, or for what length of time?

 

[Albion]

What's wrong with people residing in a residential area?

Nothing.

Are there limits on who may reside in a private residence, or for what reason, or for what length of time?

This is apparently not a private residence.

 

[tango]

Nothing.

This is apparently not a private residence.

Sure it's not a private residence, that doesn't explain why it's a problem to have people residing in an residential area. It's not like he's running heavy industry in a residential area.

 

[Albion]

Sure it's not a private residence, that doesn't explain why it's a problem to have people residing in an residential area.

Reportedly, the structure in question is located in the central business zone.

"According to the city's complaint, Avell allowed people to reside at his church in Bryan, called Dad's Place, for extended periods of time, defying the city's zoning rules. Dad's Place is zoned within the city's central business district, so people cannot eat, wash clothes or sleep at the property, the complaint reads."

 

[tango]

Reportedly, the structure in question is located in the central business zone.

"According to the city's complaint, Avell allowed people to reside at his church in Bryan, called Dad's Place, for extended periods of time, defying the city's zoning rules. Dad's Place is zoned within the city's central business district, so people cannot eat, wash clothes or sleep at the property, the complaint reads."

I wonder if a business like a hotel would be allowed to operate. Or maybe a commercial laundry facility. Presumably people visiting the businesses in the area eat, as do the people working at the businesses. I assume people don't go for an entire day without stopping for a snack. I hope nobody eats at their desk, if eating is banned.

Restricting business activities in a residential area makes sense - people who choose to live in a residential zoned area naturally don't want huge trucks thundering through a quiet housing area. I'm not sure what is gained by fussing over someone sleeping overnight, or even for extended periods, in an area where business is permitted. Even without considering the human element it would seem better for business to have the homeless housed in a church overnight than sleeping rough on the streets making the place look run down.

 

[Albion]

I wonder if a business like a hotel would be allowed to operate. Or maybe a commercial laundry facility.

Probably yes, but neither of those is a church.

Presumably people visiting the businesses in the area eat, as do the people working at the businesses. I assume people don't go for an entire day without stopping for a snack. I hope nobody eats at their desk, if eating is banned.

At this stage, my feeling is that you are playing the 'devil's advocate' for the sake of keeping the discussion going, and I'm not particularly offended by that.

Still in all, a church is a church and is treated in law as being primarily a house of worship, not a homeless encampment with walls.

All the functions that this particular congregation would like to engage in for the sake of Christian charity could be done legally by them acquiring an additional facility in a part of town that's zoned differently.

Even without considering the human element it would seem better for business to have the homeless housed in a church overnight than sleeping rough on the streets making the place look run down.

Maybe so, but the issue here concerns compliance--or noncompliance--with that city's current zoning decisions, none of which appear to be unusual.

 

[tango]

Probably yes, but neither of those is a church.

No they aren't, but if it's lawful to wash clothes in a business district it seems strange to complain that a church in a business district is washing clothes. If it's lawful for a hotel to allow people to sleep overnight in a business district it seems strange to complain that a church in a business district is allowing people to sleep overnight. And so it goes.

At this stage, my feeling is that you are playing the 'devil's advocate' for the sake of keeping the discussion going, and I'm not particularly offended by that.

Still in all, a church is a church and is treated in law as being primarily a house of worship, not a homeless encampment with walls.

Not really playing devil's advocate, more curious to see the way the minutae of laws are used in ways that probably aren't what the laws were originally about. Keeping heavy industry out of residential areas makes sense. If you choose to buy a house in an industrial area you can't complain about the industry that operates there. If you buy a house in a mixed use zone in a city you have to accept that you will have more passing traffic, more noise, and all the other stuff that goes with living near to pubs, nightclubs, restaurants, hotels etc.

The issue isn't whether a church is treated as a house of residence or a house of worship, but how being zoned for business allows people to sleep in one building but not another, wash laundry in one facility but not in another, and so on.

All the functions that this particular congregation would like to engage in for the sake of Christian charity could be done legally by them acquiring an additional facility in a part of town that's zoned differently.

Maybe so, but the issue here concerns compliance--or noncompliance--with that city's current zoning decisions, none of which appear to be unusual.

It does seem like the letter of the law is being used in a way that totally ignores the purpose of the law. It seems very much in keeping with the idea that a soup kitchen encourages homelessness, when the reality seems to be more that it highlights the failure of the existing systems to address the issue of homelessness.

 

[Albion]

No they aren't, but if it's lawful to wash clothes in a business district it seems strange to complain that a church in a business district is washing clothes.

Is it? That's the way zoning laws work. And zoning laws are not perfect, but they are the law. If it were not so, every business or other facility could simply provide the services that are allowed in a different zone. Private residences in residential neighborhoods could turn their garages into bars staying open for business until 2 AM, for instance. What would be the point of having zoning, then?

Church buildings are tax exempt because they are worship centers, not apartment complexes or restaurants, and so on. No church congregation complains about the tax benefits that they enjoy, even though they expect all the city services that they receive.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of congregations that take advantage of their situation, saying of course that they are doing humanitarian work--or that God told them to do such and such--and don't seem to care about either the laws or the damage that some of these auxiliary functions do to the neighbors.

If it's lawful for a hotel to allow people to sleep overnight in a business district it seems strange to complain that a church in a business district is allowing people to sleep overnight. And so it goes.

Not really playing devil's advocate, more curious to see the way the minutae of laws are used in ways that probably aren't what the laws were originally about.

This isn't minutia. We're not talking about a church in a residential area or central business district occasionally having a bake sale or allowing an occasional victim of spousal abuse to take temporary refuge in the rectory.

 

[Lees]

A church can't offer shelter to someone who is freezing or hungry?

Do you think he should be facing criminal charges? (Why/Why Not)

The pastor just made the Church a homeless shelter. That apparently defies the zoning restrictions. He was apparently given warning by the Zoning Commission but defied that also.

And there, I believe, he made a mistake.

So yes, I believe he should face the charges against him.

Lees