1 10 4 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/7b7763df518a6f7f72d25c010806892e.png 9849bcd9cdf5cfab9cc76ef8bcac1cdd Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Description An account of the resource Elturk meets with Michigan Muslim leader Dawud Walid, left, Sharon Buttry of the National Conference for Community and Justice, and pastor Roger Facione of Warren's Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Detroit Free Press Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Dan Cortez. Muslim Leader Embraces Challenge Warren Presents. Detroit Free Press. May 9, 2006. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michigan Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. MI_01 Location The location of the interview Warren, MI Year Year the case began. 2006 Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 28630 Ryan Rd, Warren, MI 48092 Proposed Project mosque a former office building (adaptive reuse) Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="https://ionamasjid.org/">Islamic Organization of North America</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance Public Campaign, Local Ordinance Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications Approved Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. The case involved the rejection of a planned mosque in Warren, Michigan, by the town’s Planning Commission. On March 13, 2006, community member Imam Steve Elturk proposed to the Warren Planning Committee to establish a mosque in a former office building purchased by Elturk and the Islamic Organization of North America in August 2005. The proposition was rejected by the Commission on a vote of 6-3, citing concerns about the additional traffic that people parking to attend services may cause and that the call to prayer being broadcast outside will disrupt the neighborhood. It was not Elturk’s first attempt at building a mosque, as he had first tried to locate it in Hazel Park, but the city would not rezone it to accommodate him. He eventually settled on the lot found in Warren, believing the location to be perfect for serving Muslims in a 10–12-mile radius. The location had 87 parking spaces and was in a commercial area. Elturk responded to the Commission’s concerns that the Zoning Board had already cleared his proposal with the agreed-upon stipulation that the Muslim community could not place loudspeakers outside for the call to prayer. Elturk cited this and the previous rejection of Hazel Park as evidence of bias and decided to threaten litigation (Cortez, 2006, Mar 16). The issue over amplifying the call to prayer was raised again on April 11 with an addendum specifically addressing the loudspeaker concerns (Stolarz, 2006, Apr 12), though there was an attempt to table the resolution the previous Monday. The meeting hall was filled with many people, both for and against the proposal. It included derogatory comments alleging a connection between the Islamic Organization of North America and terrorist cells. Also present was a mediator from the US Department of Justice, dispatched to ensure the civil rights of Elturk were being respected (Cortez, 2006, Apr 12). The initial vote was 4-4. However, a subsequent re-vote resulted in a vote of 5-3 in favor of the proposition (Cortez, 2006, Apr 11). The mosque opened on May 25th, 2007 (Krupa, 2007, May 24). While some raised suspicions that the rejections of the plan were Islamophobic in nature, such as Elturk or Dawud Walid, executive director for the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the members of the board maintained that the only issues they had with the project were logistical (Cortez, 2006, Mar 16). At the second convention to discuss the issue, however, many noted the use of Islamophobic statements and tropes throughout the speeches of both councilmembers and Warren residents, including one in which Commissioner Daniels asked about possible human or animal sacrifices that may take place on the premises. This statement and many others like it caused the Department of Justice to announce it would be reviewing the tapes of the meeting (Cortez, 2006, Apr 12). In response to this outcry, Elturk announced that the mosque would hold outreach programs to assuage concerns in the local community and answer any questions they may have regarding the mosque and Islam (Stolarz, 2006, Apr 25). The mosque continued with its outreach programs into the general community, such as with its “Meet your Neighbors” symposiums, where events were held between the members of different religious communities to foster a greater sense of cohesion within the different faith groups of Warren (Krupa, 2006, Jun 8). This did not quell all anxieties from non-Muslim members, attested to by a series of vandalism attacks on the location of the prospective mosque and a drunk accostment of Imam Elturk. The mosque opened on May 25, 2007 (Krupa, 2007, May 24). Elturk attributed the mosque proposal's ultimate success to collaboration between the Muslim community and groups of other faiths. On February 22, 2021, he was honored for his work on with the IFLC Interfaith Leader Award (IONA, 2021, Feb 23). Since the establishment of the city’s first mosque, Warren has had a flourishing and diverse Muslim community that has only gotten bigger, with the original mosque established by Elturk having to expand due to increased demand and numbers in the community. Initially, Elturk wanted to expand into neighboring land, but the owners were asking for too much money, so Elturk was forced to look elsewhere (Macomb, 2010, May 17). As of 2022, roughly a dozen mosques are situated in Warren (Warikoo, 2022, Sep 15). References <ul> <li>Cortez, D. (2006, March 16). Warren rejects mosque proposal. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved from <a href="https://ionamasjid.org/warren-rejects-mosque-proposal-march-16-2006">https://ionamasjid.org/warren-rejects-mosque-proposal-march-16-2006</a>.</li> <li>Cortez, D. (2006, April 11). Warren board approves mosque plan. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved from <a href="https://ionamasjid.org/warren-board-approves-mosque-plan-april-11-2006">https://ionamasjid.org/warren-board-approves-mosque-plan-april-11-2006</a>.</li> <li>Cortez, D. (2006, April 12). Mosque exposes fears in Warren. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved from <a href="https://ionamasjid.org/mosque-exposes-fears-in-warren-april-12-2006/">https://ionamasjid.org/mosque-exposes-fears-in-warren-april-12-2006</a>.</li> <li>Islamic Organization of North America [IONA]. (2021, February 23). Imam Steve Mustapha Elturk recipient of IFLC Interfaith Leader Award [Press Release]. <a href="https://ionamasjid.org/imam-steve-mustapha-elturk-recipient-of-iflc-interfaith-leader-award-february-23-2021/#:~:text=Imam%20Steve%20Mustapha%20Elturk%20Re">Web</a>.</li> <li>Krupa, G. (2006, June 8). Mosque raises interfaith issues. The Detroit News. Retrieved from <a href="https://ionaonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=307:mosque-raises-interfaith-issues-june-8-2006&catid=60:iona-in-the-news&Itemid=258">https://ionaonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=307:mosque-raises-interfaith-issues-june-8-2006&catid=60:iona-in-the-news&Itemid=258</a>.</li> <li>Krupa, G. (2007, May 24). Joint resolve gets mosque open: Multifaith effort pushed project past obstacles. The Detroit News. Retrieved from <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=0D0CB4F3D1A01B2A&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews%252F11955E82939CEB78">NewsBank</a>.</li> <li>Macomb, J. (2010, May 17). Warren mosque looking to expand. Macomb Daily. Retrieved from <a href="https://ionamasjid.org/warren-mosque-looking-to-expand-may-16-2010/">https://ionamasjid.org/warren-mosque-looking-to-expand-may-16-2010</a>.</li> <li>Stolarz, C. (2006, Apr 12). Warren approves plan for the city's first mosque. The Detroit News, p.04B. Retrieved from <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=0D0CB4F3D1A01B2A&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews%252F110F9853E00C0A60">NewsBank</a>.</li> <li>Stolarz, C. (2006, Apr 26). Mosque plan spurs effort to reach out: Warren project sparks worry, underscores need for dialogue about faith, Muslim leader says. The Detroit News: MI. Retrieved from <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=0D0CB4F3D1A01B2A&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews%252F1113FC8EF02A7D78">NewsBank</a>.</li> <li>Warikoo, N. (2022, September 15). Megachurch now a mosque as number of Islamic centers grows in Michigan. Detroit Free Press. <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2022/09/15/number-of-mosques-grows-in-michigan-as-church-becomes-islamic-center/65926143007/">Web</a>.</li> </ul> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Helia Hamidi, Matson Holmgren, Partha Jain, and Amina Malone Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University Title A name given to the resource Warren, MI Description An account of the resource In 2006, the Warren Planning Commission rejected a proposal for a mosque in Warren, Michigan, citing concerns about traffic and noise disruptions. Imam Steve Elturk, who had faced previous rejections in other locations, confronted bias allegations. A Department of Justice mediator intervened amid suspicions of Islamophobia. After a contentious process and outreach efforts, the proposal was eventually approved in April 2006, and the mosque opened in May 2007. Despite initial resistance, the mosque's establishment led to community cohesion efforts and Elturk receiving recognition for interfaith leadership. Warren's Muslim community has since grown, with multiple mosques now serving the area. Adaptive Reuse Approved (initial denial) Bias-related Incident Built DOJ Mosque Planning and Zoning Public Campaign REL230_SP24 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/0ec8f473a53cbd1fa01ee78d331c47ac.jpg 0a5941886c6e74b2cc371b56b96de9bf Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michigan Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. In 2014, some American Islamic Community Center (AICC) board members purchased a plot of land just off of 15 Mile Road in Sterling Heights, Michigan. In June of 2015, the AICC submitted a special approval land use (SALU) request to build a mosque on this land. In August of 2015, the Sterling Heights Planning Commission initially reviewed the SALU request. Shortly after this, residents began to protest the mosque citing zoning concerns, as the surrounding area was single-family homes. The request was then revised, but residents continued to protest the mosque, now blatantly including Islamophobia remarks. Following these protests, the mayor of Sterling Heights publicly announced his opposition to the mosque. In September, the Sterling Heights Planning Commission voted unanimously (9-0) to deny the mosque’s permit. In August of 2016, the AICC sued the Sterling Heights Planning Commission, alleging that a denial of the mosque infringed upon their First Amendment rights. In response to this suit, the Sterling Heights Planning Commission denied any bias against the Muslim community. Two days later, however, it was revealed that a commissioner on the board made Islamophobic remarks on his Facebook page. In December of 2016, the DOJ also filed a suit against the Sterling Heights Planning Commission, alleging the board violated the 2000 RLUIPA law. In February of 2017, the planning commission voted to settle these suits against them, allowing the mosque to be built. In March of that same year, a counter-suit was filed by the American Freedom Law Center, alleging that residents who attended the settlement meeting had their 1A rights violated. In June of 2017, a federal judge rejected the injunction against the mosque (brought on as a result of the counter-suit). In August of 2018, a judge ruled in favor of the city’s settlement and the AFLC appealed the ruling in a Cincinnati Circuit Court. In August of 2019, the court ruled in favor of the city. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Mi_06 Location The location of the interview Sterling Heights, MI Date 2015-2019 Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 5025 15 Mile Rd, Sterling Heights, MI 48310 Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="https://www.aiccmi.com/">American Islamic Community Center</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial; public campaign; bias-related incident; public speech; legal campaign Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications approved (with restrictions; settlement after initial denial and DOJ lawsuit) References Enter list of sources cited using the proper format. <ul><li>Cook, Jameson. (2019, August 23). City of Sterling Heights, prospective mosque prevail in federal appeals court ruling. The Macomb Daily. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.</li> <li>Court rules in favor of city allowing mosque to be built. (2019, August 16). Associated Press: US News Online. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Czarnik, Eric. (2015, August 12). Planners to hear request on proposed mosque. Sterling Heights Sentry . Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Dalton, Daniel. (2017, February 21). A RLUIPA win: The American Islamic Community Center will build a mosque in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Dalton and Tomich: Attorneys for Land Use. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.attorneysforlanduse.com/a-rluipa-win-the-american-islamic-community-center-will-build-a-mosque-in-sterling-heights-michigan"> https://www.attorneysforlanduse.com/a-rluipa-win-the-american-islamic-community-center-will-build-a-mosque-in-sterling-heights-michigan</a>. </li> <li>Delaney, Sean. (2015, August 22). Sterling Heights planners delay vote on controversial mosque site. The Macomb Daily. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Felton, Ryan. (2016, December 15). Justice department sues Michigan city over denial of proposed mosque. The Guardian. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/us-justice-department-mosque-michigan-sterling-heights?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other"> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/us-justice-department-mosque-michigan-sterling-heights?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other</a>.</li> <li>Fournier, Holly and Mark Hicks. (2017, February 22.). U.S. Atty: ‘Proud’ of mosque settlement. The Detroit News. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2017/02/22/sterling-heights-oks-settlement-mosque-lawsuits/98238840/">https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2017/02/22/sterling-heights-oks-settlement-mosque-lawsuits/98238840</a>. </li> <li>Harb, Ali. (2016, August 10). Muslim center sues Sterling Heights over denying mosque. The Arab American News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Harb, Ali. (2016, August 18). Planning commissioner made anti-Muslim posts before denying mosque. The Arab American News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Hicks, Mark. (2017, March 14). Sterling Heights sued over mosque case settlement. The Detroit News. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2017/03/14/sterling-heights-sued-mosque-case-settlement/99152904"> https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2017/03/14/sterling-heights-sued-mosque-case-settlement/99152904</a>. </li> <li>Hijazi, Samer. (2015, September 3). Sterling Heights mosque controversy spills across Chaldean and Muslim communities. The Arab American News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Hijazi, Samer. (2015, September 10). Sterling Heights rejects mosque proposal amid escalating tensions. The Arab American News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Hohmann, Leo. (2019, May 3). Mayor sides with Muslims in mega-mosque battle that divides community. TUW Media. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.theunitedwest.org/2019/05/03/mayor-sides-with-muslims-in-mega-mosque-battle-that-divides-community"> https://www.theunitedwest.org/2019/05/03/mayor-sides-with-muslims-in-mega-mosque-battle-that-divides-community</a>.</li> <li>Hohmann, Leo. (2018, August 1). ‘Ultimate form of civilization jihad’ planned for Michigan city: Iraqi-Christian refugees on edge after learning of mosque ‘conversion’ project. Frontpage Magazine. Retrieved from <a href="https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/ultimate-form-civilization-jihad-planned-michigan-leo-hohman">https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/ultimate-form-civilization-jihad-planned-michigan-leo-hohman</a>.</li> <li>Hotts, Mitch. (2017, February 20). Sterling Heights council to vote on mosque lawsuit settlements. The Macomb Daily. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Hundreds of Sterling Heights residents turn out to protest Mosque. (2015, August 29). The Arab American News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Judge rules in favor of city allowing mosque to be built. (2018, August 1). Associated Press State Wire: Michigan. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Justice Department files lawsuit against Sterling Heights for mosque rejection. (2016, December 15). The Arab American News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Le Miere, Jason. (2017, March 19). Christian Iraqi immigrants protest mosque construction because of ISIS violence. Newsweek. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/christian-immigrants-mosque-muslim-isis-570004"> https://www.newsweek.com/christian-immigrants-mosque-muslim-isis-570004</a>. </li> <li>Ramirez, Charles E. (2019, August 15). Court sides with Sterling Hts. in appeal of mosque challenge. The Detroit News. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2019/08/15/court-sides-sterling-hts-in-mosque-challenge/2017723001"> https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2019/08/15/court-sides-sterling-hts-in-mosque-challenge/2017723001</a>. </li> <li>Snell, Robert. (2015, September 11). Sterling Hts. panel rejects proposed mosque - Planning commission votes 9-0 unanimously. The Detroit News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Staff Writer. (2015, September 16). Mosque issue will not come before Sterling Heights council. The Daily Tribune. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Staff Writer. (2017, July 2). Judge rejects injunction against Sterling Heights mosque. The Macomb Daily. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Staff Writer. (2019, December 16). American city’s ban on criticism of Islam headed for Supreme review. WorldNetDaily. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Victor, Daniel. (2017, February 22). Muslim group wins right to build mosque in Michigan city. The New York Times. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/michigan-mosque-approved.html"> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/michigan-mosque-approved.html</a>.</li> </ul> Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. In a meeting on August 13, 2015, the planning commission for the city of Sterling Heights heard a proposed request for a special approval land use (SALU) to build a mosque for about 325 worshippers along 15 Mile Road. The SALU applicant, Jaafar Chehab, represented the American Islamic Community Center (AICC) in a project to build a house of worship on five adjoining lots in an area that was zoned for single-family homes. A staff report from the City’s Planning Office recommended the Planning Commission approve AICC’s SALU application because it met the city’s zoning ordinance conditions. After a total of 50 residents had spoken against the mosque plan--with only 7 speaking in support--the planning commission voted 6-1 to postpone the decision and further review the case before its next scheduled meeting on September 10 (Felton, 2016). Local news outlets reported that after the initial planning commission meeting, residents began to hold street protests. Protesters included members of the local Chaldean community, a group of Iraqi Christians, who had migrated to Sterling Heights in significant numbers because of the religious and ethnic persecution suffered following the deterioration of security conditions in the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Residents lined 15 Mile Road with crosses, American flags, and signs that said “Wrong Place” and “No Mosque” (Hundreds of Sterling Heights residents turn out, 2015). Petitions circulated urging city planners to deny the special land use provision for the mosque. Residents voiced similar concerns about traffic, noise, and overflow parking at the August 18 meeting of the city council (Delaney, 2015). In addition to lawful complaints, Islamophobic comments could be heard as well. The protests against the mosque project overlapped with the local election season during which the mosque project became a wedge issue. Mayor Michael Taylor, who found himself in a contested re-election campaign, made contradictory remarks. “"My heart breaks for the Chaldeans in Iraq and throughout the world who are being terrorized by Islamic terrorists," Taylor wrote on his Facebook page. "I will do everything in my power to protect, support and defend the Chaldean population in Sterling Heights. I have nothing to do with the mosque and don’t want it built there"” (Hijazi, 2015, September 3). The post was later deleted and the mayor sought to clarify that his opposition was based solely on concerns over zoning issues (ibid.). Following these protests, the planning commission denied the Muslim community’s SALU application in a unanimous 9-0 vote at a meeting on September 10, 2015 while protesters rallied in front of city hall (Snell, 2015). After the vote, comments from residents included comparisons of ISIS and boos to the Muslim leaders (ibid.). After this denial, the Sterling Heights City Council refused to review the mosque’s petition stating that final authority to approve SALU applications lay with the city’s planning commission (“Mosque Issue,” 2015)). On August 10, 2016, the American Islamic Community Center filed a complaint under RLUIPA against the Sterling Heights Planning Commission. Nearly a week later on August 16, the Sterling Heights Planning Commission publicly denied any bias against the community. The city issued a statement that “Sterling Heights is an inclusive community and welcomes diversity through its many programs and events” (Terry, 2016). Two days after this public statement, however, it was revealed that Sterling Heights Planning Commissioner Jeff Norgrove had made anti-Muslim comments via a Facebook post (Harb, 2016). In December of 2016, the Department of Justice filed a suit against the Sterling Heights Planning Commission, alleging the commission had violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The complaint alleged the city had discriminated against the Muslim community on the basis of religon. Moreover, the DOJ argued that the reasons the city had given for its denial of the application, such as a concern over the height of the mosque’s spires, had imposed an unnecessary burden on AICC’s religious exercise (Hicks, 2017).. At a contentious public meeting on February 21, 2017, the Sterling Heights City Council voted to settle the suits and to enter into a federal consent decree that would allow the mosque to be built (Hotts, M.). Although the full terms of the settlement were not made public, representatives of AICC and U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade stated at a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g00ettRfd8">joint press conference</a> the morning after the city council meeting that issues over parking and noise had been resolved. The AICC also had agreed to reduce the height of the spires from 66 to 61 ft. The settlement of the DOJ case did not include monetary payments but the city agreed to pay $350,000 toward its insurance deductible to offset costs AICC had incurred for its suit against the city. Under the terms of the settlement the city did not admit to any wrongdoing but was required to revisit its nondiscrimination policies and agree to RLUIPA training (Fournier and Hicks, 2017). The tumultuous events at the city council meeting of February 21 formed the basis of a lawsuit against the City of Sterling Heights by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) seeking to invalidate the settlement. Following shouts of “terrorist” and repeated interruptions by members of the public, the city council had restricted public comments and removed one resident from the room (Victor, 2017). The AFLC’s lawsuit was filed on behalf of several Sterling Heights residents, including the aforementioned City Planning Commissioner Jeff Norgrove. It included allegations that the city had violated the Equal Protection Act, the Open Meetings Act, and citizens’ First Amendment rights. AFLC also filed an injunction seeking to halt construction. “Regardless of Defendants’ purpose for entering into the Consent Judgment and for the Mayor’s actions at the City Council meeting, the effect of such actions conveys a message of approval of Islam,” the complaint read. “A reasonable observer would conclude that this favors the adherents of Islam over those who are not adherents of Islam” (Youkhana v. City of Sterling Heights [ED MI, filed 3/13/2017]). In late June, a federal judge rejected the injunction against the mosque (“Judge Rejects Injunction,” 2017) and, more than a year later in August of 2018, a federal judge ruled in favor of the city (“Judge Rules in Favor of City,” 2018). The AFLC’s appeal to the Sixth U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati was unanimously dismissed by a three-judge panel in August of 2019. Siding with the city, the ruling affirmed that the city council’s restrictions on comments regarding religion to issues in which religion is relevant to zoning considerations such as potential noise disturbance from amplified calls to prayer had not infringed on residents’ constitutional rights (Ramirez, 2019). The <a href="https://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/case/youkhanna-v-city-of-sterling-heights/">AFLC’s website</a> indicates that the group filed a petition for a rehearing en banc in August 2019 but does not offer any updates on the current status. Similar, the WorldNetDaily, an extremist group according to the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/worldnetdaily">Southern Poverty Law Center</a>, reported that the case would eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court, but no such verification has been possible thus far (“American City’s Ban on Criticism of Islam,” 2019). Year Year the case began. 2015 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Sterling Heights, MI Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. MI_06, occurring in Sterling Heights, MI, 48310 from 2015 to 2019 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University DOJ Lawsuit (RLUIPA) https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/4d292540f81abad7b2bc389dd918a259.jpg 1ea44a05dc58bf12cb1599d33603da01 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/f95db2566db8e2f72960365b2bc150d1.jpg 228a312491fe908e70b63f6101e46c70 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/7a043a927b90031b64df1622bbf950ed.jpg 2e27fd5802a0e6b0eded48216f3512be https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/7855bb12fd80b5ca66c4d5b7eba5eb26.jpg 24ec459b89ec86fcd4a93bece2987054 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/f0c572e105250734ad196582fd75b0c2.jpg e35ce498567bb24133d631c9ab201453 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/e271ff4a2f82b2aa2939e34ad65c9480.JPG f73bea7c3575e7afa2fecd0f335a2b89 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michigan Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. 68HQ+XJ Pittsfield Charter Twp, Michigan Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Mi_05 Location The location of the interview Pittsfield, MI Date 2011-2016 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. The Michigan Islamic Academy (MIA) seeks to build a school on a vacant 26.7-acre tract of land in Pittsfield Township. The parcel is part of a planned unit development requiring a rezoning application. After a series of heavily attended meetings, the Tonwship’s Planning Commission recommends denial of the application based primarily on concerns over increased traffic. Pittsfield’s Board of Trustees unanimously votes to deny MIA’s application in October 2011. In February 2012, CAIR-MI sues Pittsfield Township on behalf of MIA in federal court. The lawsuit plays out over the next four and one-half years. In October 2015, the Department of Justice files a separate RLUIPA lawsuit against the Township. Both cases are settled in 2016 allowing the project to proceed. The Township is also ordered to pay MIA $1.7 million in damages and legal fees. Proposed Project school (initial proposal also include a future community center and mosque) Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="http://mca-a2.org">Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor</a> (MCA); <a href="http://mca-a2.org/mia">Michigan Islamic Academy</a> (MIA) Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial; public campaign; legal campaign Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications approved (after legal settlement) Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. The Michigan Islamic Academy (MIA), a private Islamic school in Ann Arbor, had outgrown its facilities. Established in 1985 as a subsidiary organization of the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor (MCA), MIA shared facilities with MCA’s community center and mosque on Ann Arbor’s Plymouth Road. By 2008, the buildings had become inadequate to deliver the school’s curriculum and MIA began exploring options to branch out. In addition to expanding its existing facilities in Ann Arbor—a plan the City of Ann Arbor approved in May 2010 (Zemke, 2010, May 5)—MIA found a suitable location for a new school building in the nearby Pittsfield Township. The property required a rezoning application. The RLUIPA case that followed the Township’s denial of MIA’s rezoning application included not only MIA’s private lawsuit but also a separate DOJ complaint against the Township as well as a legal intervention by the American Freedom Law Center. In September 2016, after four and one-half years, the parties entered a consent order that allowed the project to proceed. It also required the Township to pay MIA $1.7 million in fees and damages--one of the largest settlement sums in an RLUIPA case at the time. In their search for a suitable property board members had identified an undeveloped residential tract of 26.7 acres in nearby Pittsfield Township The parcel was part of the residential Silverleaf Planned Unit Development (PUD). Although the Township’s master plan permitted schools in residential zones, the PUD made a rezoning application necessary (Gardner, 2011, January 12). MIA representatives informed Township officials about the intended use and received verbal assurance that the property could be rezoned (Perkins, 2011, March 31). In September 2010, MCA community members purchased the property for around $250,000 at foreclosure and continued to work with Township planners on submitting a rezoning application. MIA submitted its petition (RZ 10-04) for one-story school building to the Planning Commission in early December 2010. The submitted plans included plans for a future community center and prayer hall in addition to the educational facilities for the school. The Planning Commission met on January 13, 2011 to discuss the application. Representatives from MIA addressed concerns brought forth by an outside consultant for the Township and signaled their willingness to accept further modifications and conditions. Commissioners, however, voted unanimously in favor of having planning staff draft a resolution for denial that could be discussed and voted on at a subsequent Planning Commission meeting (Gardener, 2011, January 13). Although MIA’s project was not included on the formal agenda until August, several speakers addressed the project at subsequent Planning Commission meetings from the floor. At a heavily attended meeting on June 16, opponents presented the Planning Commission with a petition signed by 26 residents against the project. After controversial statements from the public that included negative comments on Muslim practices, the Planning Commission voted on a preliminary motion to deny MIA’s petition. About 125 residents attended the August 4 meeting when the Planning Commission formally took up MIA’s rezoning petition again and voted 3-2 in favor of the resolution for denial (Perkins, 2011, August 5). The vote came after a long public comment session that had lasted until 1:30 a.m. The Commission based its denial on the assessment that MIA did not fulfill 3 out of 11 required standards for rezoning of the PUD. Commissioners noted that MIA could not be considered a “small-scale school,” which had been a stipulation in the Township’s 2003 masterplan when MIA submitted its application, though the small-scale qualifier had been dropped from the subsequent masterplan in 2010. The Commission also cited expectations for an increase in traffic and expected noise and light disturbances from outdoor activities as further reasons for its denial. The Township’s Board of Trustees (BOT) followed the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial at its October 26 meeting. The BOT did not publicly deliberate the motion before it proceeded to vote unanimously for denial (Perkins, 2011, October 27). No public comments had been allowed during the meeting. Following the Township’s vote, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District confirmed that it was reviewing the denial as a potential RLUIPA violation (Brand-Williams, 2011, December 27). While the DOJ was still determining whether to start a formal investigation, CAIR-MI announced at a press conference in February 2012 that it had filed a federal lawsuit on MIA’s behalf against the Township. The case Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor and Vicinity v. Pittsfield Charter Township (E.D. Mich. 12-CV-10803) made it through the court system in several stages involving amendments to the original complaint as well as an intervention by the American Freedom Law Center which sought to “quash” MIA’s discovery demands against seven local residents. In a ruling from March 20, 2015 the court denied MIA’s complaint on the grounds that the group “lacked a legally cognizable property interest to sustain its claims” because it never itself had acquired the property but only received permission from the property owner to use it for its school (Seeman et al., 2015, April 10). Despite this denial based on Michigan state law, the court was careful to state that MIA could still assert the RLUIPA claim if it acquired a property interest or that the claim could be brought by another entity that had such an interest. On May 20, 2015 MIA officially acquired the property (Chaffee et al., 2015, November 1). The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a separate RLUIPA lawsuit against the Township. In United States of America v. Pittsfield Charter Township (E.D. Mich. October 26, 2015) the DOJ alleged that the Township had placed a substantial burden on MIA. The complaint specifically responded to the three required standards for rezoning the Planning Commission had used as basis for its recommendation for denial. “The stated failure to meet the three PUD criteria was without factual basis,” read the complaint (ibid., p. 11). The DOJ further charged that Commissioners had continued to raise concerns about potential problems stemming from a future community center on the site even though MIA had resubmitted revised drawings to the Commission that excluded the plan for a community center and prayer hall. Within a year of the DOJ’s RLUIPA complaint the court entered a consent order that required the Township to allow the project to proceed and to accept additional training, notice, and reporting requirements (“Justice Department and Pittsfield Charter Township Resolve Lawsuit,” 2016, September 29). The consent order was filed concurrently with a consent judgment in MIA’s lawsuit against the Township. The latter required Pittsfield to pay $1.7 million in damages and legal fees that had resulted from the delay in construction caused by the 2011 denial. In addition, CAIR-MI disclosed that the settlement would allow MIA “to build a 70,000 square foot Islamic school, a residential development consisting of 22 duplex units and three single family homes, and a park” (“Islamic School Awarded $1.7 Million in Settlement,” 2016, September 29). Neither consent order required the Township to admit any wrongdoing or liability. As of June 2020, no land had been broken on the property. References Enter list of sources cited using the proper format. <ul><li>Arndt, Danielle. (2012, February 22). American-Islamic council: Pittsfield Township's blocking of Islamic school is 'neo-Jim Crow'. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Brand-Williams, Oralanda. (2011, December 27). Rejected Muslim school bid reviewed - Group: Institution's rights violated in Pittsfield Twp. The Detroit News: Web Edition Articles, A3. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>CAIR-MI asks DOJ to probe bias in decision on Islamic School. (2011, July 26). PR Newswire. Retrieved from <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com">https://infoweb-newsbank-com</a>.</li> <li>Chaffee, K., Seeman, E., & Merriam, D. (2015, April 10). Round two: DOJ sues Pittsfield Charter Township. Robinson+Cole. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.rluipa-defense.com/2015/11/round-two-doj-sues-pittsfield-charter-township">https://www.rluipa-defense.com/2015/11/round-two-doj-sues-pittsfield-charter-township</a>. </li> <li>Gardner, Paul. (2011, January 12). Michigan Islamic Academy seeks to build new school on Ellsworth in Pittsfield Township. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Gardner, Paul. (2011, January 13). 'Not a lot of support' for Michigan Islamic Academy in Pittsfield Township. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Islamic school awarded $1.7 million in settlement of CAIR-MI suit against Michigan township. (2016, September 29). PR Newswire. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Justice Department and Pittsfield Charter Township resolve lawsuit. (2016, September 29). Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-pittsfield-charter-township-resolve-lawsuit-over-denial-zoning">https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-pittsfield-charter-township-resolve-lawsuit-over-denial-zoning</a>. </li> <li>Perkins, Tom. (2011, October 27). Michigan Islamic Academy vows litigation after Pittsfield Township rejects rezoning for school. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Perkins, Tom. (2011, August 5). Islamic school rezoning rejected by Pittsfield Township Planning Commission. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Perkins, Tom. (2011, March 31). Michigan Islamic Academy officials make case for new Pittsfield Township school. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Seeman, E., Chaffee, K. & Merriam, D. (2015, April 10). Court finds Muslim group lacks property interest and tosses RLUPA suit; Pittsfield Charter Township wins. Robinson+Cole. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.rluipa-defense.com/2015/04/court-finds-muslim-group-lacks-property-interest-and-tosses-rluipa-suit-pittsfield-charter-township-wins">https://www.rluipa-defense.com/2015/04/court-finds-muslim-group-lacks-property-interest-and-tosses-rluipa-suit-pittsfield-charter-township-wins</a>. </li> <li>Zemke, Jon (2010, May 5). Ann Arbor green lights Michigan Islamic Academy expansion. Concentrate. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.secondwavemedia.com/concentrate/devnews/michiganislamicacademyannarbor0102.aspx">https://www.secondwavemedia.com/concentrate/devnews/michiganislamicacademyannarbor0102.aspx</a>. </li> </ul> Last Updated Date revised. June 23, 2020 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Pittsfield, MI Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. MI_05, occurring in Pittsfield, MI, 48105 from 2011 to 2016 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/a57d30efe01da9485b73be02e7e67926.jpg 730aa3acbbd02c650db737459f5d5b6a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michigan Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. An Islamic group named Adam explored several properties over a five year span in order to develop an Islamic center. The Zoning Board of Appeals for the city of Troy, Michigan denied the variances that Adam requested for their community center. As a result, the DOJ began an investigation into Troy’s zoning practices and filed a lawsuit against Troy. The Michigan division of CAIR also filed a lawsuit on behalf of Adam Both of these lawsuits are ongoing. Date 2018-cont. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 3635 Rochester Road, Troy, MI 48083 Proposed Project Islamic center Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. Adam Community Center Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Mi_08 Location The location of the interview Troy, MI Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications rejected (legal action ongoing) Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. The Adam Community Center (“Adam”) is a community of Sunni Muslims in Troy, Michigan. For seven years, the group has struggled to get their projects approved by the city. In 2013, a real estate company purchased a former restaurant and planned to develop it into a community center for Adam. At a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, however, city officials designated the proposed project as a “place of worship” and the seller of the property accepted a different offer (Troy BZA minutes 2013). In 2017, the Adam Community Center approached the City of Troy with a list of several different properties in order to be advised on which ones may be best suited for development. Allegedly, the city refused to assist Adam and advised them to look for properties in neighboring cities (United States if America v. City of Troy, Michigan). *A year later, Adam had entered a preliminary agreement to purchase their current property. In order to develop this property and use it as a place of worship, Adam requested variances at a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Unanimously, the Zoning Board of Appeals rejected Adam’s request for variances. The rejection of these variances caused the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to file a lawsuit on behalf of Adam in the Eastern District of Michigan. The complaint, which was filed in November of 2018, outlines numerous allegations of Troy’s discriminatory behavior, including an instance where Adam attempted to purchase an existing church, but residents of Troy learned about the purchase and brought in Christian investors to buy out the church from under Adam (Adam Community Center v. City of Troy). The lawsuit accuses Troy of violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) on three counts: depriving Adam of their religious exercise by imposing a substantial burden, discrimination on the basis of religion, and imposing unequal restrictions against religious institutions (Adam Community Center v. City of Troy).* In response to this lawsuit, the City of Troy requested a dismissal, which was rejected by a federal judge. In 2019, the United States Department of Justice also filed a lawsuit against Troy. The suit outlines similar allegations against Troy, but only alleges that Troy violated RLUIPA on two counts: imposing a substantial burden on Adam and imposing unequal restrictions against religious institutions. The DOJ’s lawsuit makes no mention of discrimination on the basis of religion. This is likely because it is more difficult to prove religious discrimination in a court of law. Both lawsuits are still ongoing as of June 2020. Last Updated Date revised. July 2, 2020 Year Year the case began. 2018 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Troy, MI Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. MI_08, occurring in Troy, MI, 48083 from 2018 to present Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University DOJ Lawsuit (RLUIPA)