3 10 101 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/2da72df0b834bbc3042db3e502a1a9c5.png 7b1ce042713a524635ac15c604de8eb3 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 Digital Rendering of Al Falah Center at the approved site [Online image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.alfalahcenter.org. https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/a1d3c438873cfb68e19b216e58f42914.png 00bea28b381b33f26cff728feca5c419 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 Conceptual drawing for Mountaintop Road proposal [Online image]. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/somerset-county/2015/08/13/bridgewater-review-plans-mosque-route/31667433/ https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/8ba77bb275f01162cdab78914a06149b.png 6753169b5e694a4b19ffdc038cb7aef2 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 Bridgewater Town Meeting to discuss zoning ordinances [Online image]. (2011). Retrieved from https://patch.com/new-jersey/bridgewater/al-falah-center-we-want-freedom-to-practice-religion  https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/d53147ce99590d117b55390c3ccc7652.png 37ae092523902cb0c839111df2456b58 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 Sunday School at Al Falah Center [Online image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.alfalahcenter.org/sunday-school 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 New Jersey 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. Nj_06 Location The location of the interview Bridgewater, NJ Date January 2011-December 2014 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. From January 2011, Bridgewater Township (NJ) stopped the Al Falah Center from building its proposed Islamic Center by imposing new zoning laws. The Al Falah Center took the case to the federal district court, where the Judge sided with the religious group. There was still pushback from the town, but a settlement was reached in December 2014. The Al Falah Center could have their Center in a different location but in a different location. The new property was bought by the town in exchange for the original site. The town also paid a total of $7.75 million in damages to the Muslim community. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 1475 Mountain Top Road Bridgewater, NJ 08807 Proposed Project Al Falah wanted to convert an existing structure (banquet hall) into an Islamic Center with a worship center, daycare, elementary school, and community center, all called the Al Falah Center. Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="https://www.alfalahcenter.org/">Al Falah Center</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance Local Ordinance; Campaign/Lawsuit Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications Settlement; approved with restrictions (new location); damages paid to Muslim community. Current Status: The Al Falah Center is a nascent organization. They have religious school on Saturdays and Sundays for minors and hold prayers for the Muslim communities of Somerset County. The community is holding their Friday (Jumuah) prayer at a local Ukrainian Catholic Church while still looking to expand and actively collecting donations. Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. Preface In 2011, the Muslim Community in Bridgewater, NJ and the surrounding suburbs wanted to convert an existing, empty building into an Islamic Center with a mosque, daycare, elementary school, and community center, called the Al Falah Center. Even though hearings for the proposed Al Falah Center were already underway, Bridgewater Township changed its zoning laws while the proposal was under review. The new zoning ordinance stipulated that places of worship could only be situated along designated (approved) major roads. The proposed site for the Islamic Center, which was to be in the building previously used for the Redwood Inn, was not on one of these roads (Fleischer 2011, Apr 28). The reasons the town gave for the ordinances were traffic as well as the desire to preserve the “residential character” of the neighborhoods. The town had commissioned several professional reports: a traffic report, environmental report, and a noise issue report. All reports found no problem with the proposed location for the Al Falah Center (Levine 2011, Jan 21). The Timeline The first meeting of the Planning Board to review the proposal for the Islamic Center was scheduled to be held on January 24th, 2011. The meeting, however, was postponed until February 28th following vocal protests by residents. On February 28th, although a meeting was held, the final vote to approve the Center was postponed to March 28th. The reason given for delaying the procedures was that a ‘larger venue was needed’ to accommodate attendance at the hearings (“Islamic group sues…” 2011, Apr 28). On March 14th, the town changed its zoning ordinance limiting houses of worship to specific main roads. The new ordinance allowed the town to reject Al Falah’s proposal (Fleischer 2011, Apr 28). Al Falah objected to the process of delaying the approval process until after the town had changed its zoning regulations so that the town would no longer have to evaluate the Center’s application based on zoning laws in place at the time of the original application, which would have significantly increased the Center’s chances of approval. On April 26th, the Al Falah Center filed a lawsuit in federal district court in NJ against the town, which is now case No. 11-2397 (Al Falah Center vs. Twp of Bridgewater, 2014). Outcome The case by the Al Falah Center was built on the premise that in unnaturally accelerating the process of changing zoning ordinances, Bridgewater Township unfairly treated religious institutions as “less than equal” to nonreligious ones (Deak 2015, Aug 13). The federal court, led by Judge Shipp, sided with the Al Falah Center; the judge ruled that the Planning Board had to re-hear the mosque application without applying the new ordinance. The lawsuit was completed in September 2013. Negotiations, however, continued until December 2014. The township was still pushing back after Judge Shipp’s decision and filed a case to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which was stopped by an oppositional motion by the Al Falah Center and Judge Shipp’s denial of the town’s appeal (“Al Falah Center v. Township” 2015, Jan 28). Al Falah’s case was built on the ordinance being passed very fast, rather than the ordinance itself (Deak 2014, Dec 2). The Township maintained that the Al Falah Center could not be built on Mountaintop Road, and bought a $2.75 million dollar property to accommodate them elsewhere. In the final settlement from December 2014, the Township had to pay the Al Falah Center $5 million for damages incurred. Today, the Al Falah Center is up and running. Its official address is in Bedminster, which is a neighboring town of Bridgewater, also in Somerset County. While fundraising for the Islamic Center on the new property continues, the community is running its various programs such as daily prayers, the Friday congregational prayer, and educational activities out of different locations in the area: The Friday congregational prayer takes place in the banquet hall of a Ukrainian Catholic Church in neighboring Hillsborough Township (“Friday [Jummah] Prayer” 2018, May 17). Implications Judge Shipp emphasized that the Muslim community of Somerset County had been deprived of a house of worship for many years (Louis C. Hochman, B. 2014, Dec 7) and that the untimely and rushed passing of the zoning ordinance was unlawful. The strong support from a federal court helped increase the Muslim community’s visibility within the American framework. The damages paid by Bridgewater Township also helped jumpstart Al Falah’s operations on the Islamic Center. This case is often held up as an example of a lawsuit gone well for Muslims and inspires other groups in their own conflicts (Associated Press Newswires. 2017, May 24) with local government institutions to pursue their claims in the court system (“House Homeland Security” 2012, Jun 20). References Enter list of sources cited using the proper format. <ul><li>Deak, M. (2014, December 2). Bridgewater, mosque in land swap. My Central Jersey. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/somerset-county/2014/12/02/bridgewater-mosque-reach-settlement-million-land-swap/19775661/">https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/somerset-county/2014/12/02/bridgewater-mosque-reach-settlement-million-land-swap/19775661/</a>.</li> <li>Deak, M. (2015, August 13) New plans for Bridgewater mosque. My Central Jersey. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/somerset-county/2015/08/13/bridgewater-review-plans-mosque-route/31667433">https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/somerset-county/2015/08/13/bridgewater-review-plans-mosque-route/31667433</a>.</li> <li>Levine, A. (2011, January 21). Application for Mosque on Planning Board Agenda. Bridgewater Patch. Retrieved from <a href="https://archive.is/20120710063201/http:/bridgewater.patch.com/articles/application-for-mosque-on-planning-board-agenda#selection-1903.373-1903.374">https://archive.is/20120710063201/http://bridgewater.patch.com/articles/application-for-mosque-on-planning-board-agenda#selection-1903.373-1903.374</a>.</li> <li>Al Falah Center (2019, Jun 2). Al Falah Center and Bridgewater Township Reach Settlement. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.alfalahcenter.org/single-post/2016/05/08/Finding-support-and-help-how-your-community-can-make-a-difference">https://www.alfalahcenter.org/single-post/2016/05/08/Finding-support-and-help-how-your-community-can-make-a-difference</a>.</li> <li>Al Falah Center (2018, May 17). Friday (Jummah) Prayer Announcement. Retrieved from</li> <li><a href="https://www.alfalahcenter.org/upcoming-events">https://www.alfalahcenter.org/upcoming-events</a>.</li> <li>, L. (2014, December 2). Bridgewater mosque will be built, as township settles suit for $7.75 million. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.nj.com/somerset/2014/12/bridgewater_mosque_will_be_built_as_township_settles_suit_for_775_million.html">https://www.nj.com/somerset/2014/12/bridgewater_mosque_will_be_built_as_township_settles_suit_for_775_million.html</a>.</li> <li>Levine, A. (2011, July 20). Al Falah Center Lawsuit Continues Despite Township Motion For It To Be Dismissed. Retrieved from <a href="https://patch.com/new-jersey/bridgewater/al-falah-center-lawsuit-continues-despite-township-mo0d580456f3">https://patch.com/new-jersey/bridgewater/al-falah-center-lawsuit-continues-despite-township-mo0d580456f3</a>.</li> <li>Hochman, Louis C. B. (2014, December 7). Mosque will be built, suit settled.Hunterdon County Democrat (Flemington, NJ), p. 4. Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/152126BEB6F95188">https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/152126BEB6F95188</a>.</li> <li>Al Falah Ctr. v. Twp. of Bridgewater, Civil Action No. 11-2397 (MAS) (LHG) (D.N.J. Jan. 6, 2014)</li> <li>Fleisher, L. (2011, April 28). Mosque in zone fight: New Jersey group sues after plans for center are thwarted. The Wall Street Journal. Available from Dow Jones Factiva: <a href="https://global-factiva-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/ha/default.aspx#./!?&_suid=157287699764306252502743976767">https://global-factiva-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/ha/default.aspx#./!?&_suid=157287699764306252502743976767</a>.</li> <li>(2017, May 24). Town agrees to settle lawsuits after denying plan for mosque. Associated Press Newswires. Available from Dow Jones Factiva: <a href="https://global-factiva-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/ha/default.aspx#./!?&_suid=157344136770809292107383172633">https://global-factiva-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/ha/default.aspx#./!?&_suid=157344136770809292107383172633</a>.</li> <li>Scribner, H. (2013, October 4). Federal ruling bars N.J. township from blocking mosque expansion.Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City). Available from Nexus Uni: <a href="https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:59H9-BDT1-JBRG-X0BP-00000-00&context=1516831">https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:59H9-BDT1-JBRG-X0BP-00000-00&context=1516831</a>.</li> <li>(June 20, 2012). House Homeland Security Committee Hearing; "The American Muslim Response to Hearings on Radicalization within their Community."; Testimony by Faiza Patel, Co-Director, Liberty and National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice.Congressional Documents and Publications. Available from Nexis Uni: <a href="https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:55XW-5811-JCCP-030Y-00000-00&context=1516831">https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:55XW-5811-JCCP-030Y-00000-00&context=1516831</a>.</li> <li>Al Falah Center Wins Injunction Against Bridgewater Township. (n.d.). Retrieved from <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/al-falah-center-wins-injunction-against-bridgewater-township">https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/al-falah-center-wins-injunction-against-bridgewater-township</a>.</li> <li>(2015, January 28) Al Falah Center v. Township of Bridgewater. (n.d.). Retrieved from <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/al-falah-center-v-township-bridgewater">https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/al-falah-center-v-township-bridgewater</a></li> <li>(2011, April 28). Islamic group sues N.J. town over mosque.USA TODAY. Available from Nexus Uni: <a href="https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:52R8-W741-JC8N-K24H-00000-00&context=1516831">https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:52R8-W741-JC8N-K24H-00000-00&context=1516831</a>.</li> <li>Fleisher, Blake. International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, 2015, https://www.ict.org.il/UserFiles/IRI-in-NJ-Fleisher-Mar15.pdf.</li> </ul> Last Updated Date revised. November 12, 2019 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 Bridgewater, NJ Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Ishika Gupta Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. NJ_06, occurring in Bridgewater, NJ, 08807 from January 2011 to December 2014 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ishika Gupta https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/eea22fd50140634b1e53e7564a671a35.png e02e75849cbfa80b7cfb05071da7c05a 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 Gregory, C. (2016). What it Takes to Build a Mosque in New Hampshire. [Online image]. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-mosque-new-hampshire/">https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-mosque-new-hampshire</a>. https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/5227574b462ed3d1cd680d351c9e021c.png fa8b64d4fddf48f541f072585b847525 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 Kreiter, S. (2017). Mohammad Islam, chairman of the local Islamic Society’s building committee, surveyed the unfinished structure [Online image]. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/10/14/muslims-pray-for-long-awaited-mosque-opening/Ece4uAs4HzA38j75jVyk7O/story.html">https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/10/14/muslims-pray-for-long-awaited-mosque-opening/Ece4uAs4HzA38j75jVyk7O/story.html</a> https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/0abd66ca6d05d73df30ed16239953629.png 23e35248378e5fb612c27dcd210cafe1 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 Kreiter, S. (2017). Habid Ullah, Islamic Society of New Hampshire member; Mohammad Ewiess, mosque board president; and Mahboubul Hassan, board member, examined the mosque [Online image]. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/10/14/muslims-pray-for-long-awaited-mosque-opening/Ece4uAs4HzA38j75jVyk7O/story.html">https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/10/14/muslims-pray-for-long-awaited-mosque-opening/Ece4uAs4HzA38j75jVyk7O/story.html</a>. https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/0939a75bcf89fc46b93580975971df91.png 65ff80c494ca896f1a046fa6f994e5cb 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 Gregory, C. (2016). Hassan. [Online image]. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-mosque-new-hampshire/">https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-mosque-new-hampshire</a>. https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/8867706f9159c67b931953cf0b490de4.png 62e5b050d1b2789d0ac9df081429daf5 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 Gregory, C. (2016). Mohammad Islam, a Bangladeshi émigré, is the building committee chiar. [Online image]. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-mosque-new-hampshire/">https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-mosque-new-hampshire</a>. 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 New Hampshire 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. Nh_01 Location The location of the interview Manchester, NH Date 2003-2007 Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 19 Karatzas Ave, Manchester, NH 03104 Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. XHXM+WV Manchester, New Hampshire Coordinates Enter the coordinates for the location, if they are available. 42°59'59.2"N 71°24'55.1"W Proposed Project The Islamic Society of New Hampshire proposed the building of a 13,000-square-foot three-level building on a remote hillside property in Manchester, New Hampshire. If completed, the structure will have a prayer room, tutoring center, basement for meetings, kitchen, and a domed roof. Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="https://www.isofnh.org/">Islamic Society of New Hampshire</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance Vandalism/Threat; Legal Campaign/Lawsuit Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications Delayed but moving forward with some difficulty. Last Updated Date revised. October 26, 2019 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. Residents of Greater Manchester, New Hampshire, have been trying to build a mosque for nearly two decades in hope of finding a fixed place to gather and pray. Many have tried to stop the construction, claiming the local Muslim population would put their health and safety at risk or even suggesting that the mosque would be used for underground terrorist activity. Starting in 2003, multiple lawsuits were filed by members of the community in hope of delaying the building and ultimately bringing both local and national attention to the controversy. By 2007, however, all suits had been dropped and the Society continued to build. Today, the Islamic Society of New Hampshire is still working on funding the mosque but the work is moving forward. Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. The Islamic Society of New Hampshire In 1987, a Saudi Arabian student named Sheikh Ahmed Shedi began his undergraduate education at the New Hampshire College (now known as Southern New Hampshire University). He wanted to find a place in New Hampshire that could serve as a mosque for the growing local Muslim population. This space ended up being Shedi’s apartment (ISGM, 2012). Five years later, in 1992, Hussein A. Dayib from Kenya and Khurshid Alam from Pakistan took leadership of the new group and officially created the Muslim Student Association at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU). The group struggled to find a suitable space for regular prayer and community organizing. They moved from Shedi’s apartment to an Audio-Visual Studio to a Dance Studio and finally to a room in SNHU’s New Hampshire hall on their North Campus in 1993 (ISGM, 2012). Two years later, the University decided to sell North Campus in a consolidation effort, leaving the Muslim Student Association stranded again. Over the following years, there was a significant influx of refugees from predominantly Muslim countries into the United States and New Hampshire. It wasn’t long until the Muslim Student Association became the Islamic Society of Greater Manchester (ISGM), a not-for-profit organization hoping to build New Hampshire’s first mosque. Mohamed Ewiess, current president of the Islamic Society, says the motive for this project comes from the Quran: “Whoever builds a mosque for Allah, then Allah will build for him a house like it in Paradise” (ISNH, 2019). That same year, in 1998, the Islamic Society purchased 2.75 acres of land on Karatzas Avenue, adding another acre in 2007, and began work on the mosque (ISGM, 2012). Building a Mosque on Bald Hill Trouble began for the Islamic Society of Greater Manchester (also known as Islamic Society of New Hampshire or ISNH) as soon as construction on their new land began at the start of 2003 (Hayward, June 2003). After the Islamic Society tore down the standing building, the city of Manchester insisted they couldn’t start construction until all property owners along the street spent over $500,000 in repairing Karatzas Avenue (Donahue, 2016). The city ultimately dismissed the case because the request was found to be unjustifiable, but the case raised awareness about possible financial complications for the Society in the future. They had expected the project to cost no more than $2 million, but even that proved to be a stretch. A core issue for ISNH was that a conventional interpretation of the Quran advises against taking interest-bearing loans, making fundraising extremely difficult for the Islamic Society (Hayward, May 2003). Instead, they began hosting annual fundraisers and have continued to host them for the past twenty years, bringing in about $150,000 for construction. While the fundraisers were significant events for the community, difficulties continued as they were not reaching their expected goals. Three months after signing an agreement with a local architect, the September 11th attacks took down the twin towers, and almost all outside funding for ISNH’s mosque disappeared (Jacobs, 2017). Still, the Society had allies. For example, Bob Baines, mayor of Manchester, NH from 2000 to 2006 spoke out in support of the Islamic Society’s plan: “Manchester has always been a city noted for its ability to accommodate a multiplicity of races, ethnicities, and religions” (Donahue, 2016). The local government overall has been supportive of ISNH’s plans in an attempt to integrate this Muslim community into their own. But the overwhelming response from neighbors and citizens of the area post-9/11 until around the year 2007 was negative. In 2003, a lawsuit was filed by Milton and Sally Argerious saying the Society’s mosque would be trespassing on their property (Hayward, May 2003). Two years later, a judge ruled against the couple and dropped all charges. Frank Scarito also filed a lawsuit in 2003 aiming to prove that in allowing the construction, Manchester was failing to “protect the public health, safety, and welfare” of its citizens (Donahue, 2016). In 2006, Doug Lambert, a local blogger, targeted the Islamic Society of New Hampshire in a post. He suggested that the mosque would serve as “ammo dumps and hideouts for murderous thugs,” and he compared ISNH to a Nazi organization (Lambert, 2006). Despite the hate and attempted blocks, four years after receiving their permit, the ISNH moved forward with construction in 2007. Current Status Since 2007, the Islamic Society of New Hampshire’s main issue has been funding. Area tradespeople took on some of the construction work, and annual fundraisers continued to raise money (Jacobs, 2017). By 2013, the exterior was complete, and now in 2019, the interior is cleaned up, and the ISNH is almost ready to receive full certificate of occupancy (ISNH, 2019). Due to the building’s vacancy over the past decade, it’s become a target. One year, two kids smashed almost all the windows causing over $30,000 in repairs. The Society says it’s also not uncommon to find evidence of trespassers on their property (Donahue, 2016).Additionally, Bald Hill, the mosque’s site, is an incredibly difficult piece of land with rocky outcrops and uneven ground. It has required extensive and expensive work to overcome. These setbacks, while individually minor, have only slowed the construction of Manchester’s mosque. Since the Society’s founding, three other mosques have been built in New Hampshire, but many members of Manchester’s Muslim community are still hopeful. Twenty years later, ISNH has raised around $1.5 million but needs another $2.5 million to complete the project (Jacobs, 2017). Today, the congregation has grown from only 25 families in 1998 to almost two hundred with citizens from over 25 countries (Donahue, 2016). ISNH moved into the first floor of three, at the end of 2018, but full completion of the mosque is still on a distant horizon (Garrova, 2018). References Enter list of sources cited using the proper format. Local <ul><li>Garrova, R. (2018, June 12). Breaking Fast in A Mini-Mall, Manchester Muslims Hope to Move into New Mosque Soon. New Hampshire Public Radio. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.nhpr.org/post/breaking-fast-mini-mall-manchester-muslims-hope-move-new-mosque-soon#stream/0">https://www.nhpr.org/post/breaking-fast-mini-mall-manchester-muslims-hope-move-new-mosque-soon#stream/0</a>.</li> <li>Hayward, M. (2003, May 9). Mosque proposal prompts a debate. New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, NH). Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&t=&sort=YMD_date%3AD&maxresults=20&f=advanced&val-base-0=%22Mosque%20proposal%20prompts%20a%20debate%22&fld-base-0=alltext&bln-base-1=and&val-base-1=2003&fld-base-1=YMD_date&docref=news/0FAF0D06BAD6D2BB#copy">https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&t=&sort=YMD_date%3AD&maxresults=20&f=advanced&val-base-0=%22Mosque%20proposal%20prompts%20a%20debate%22&fld-base-0=alltext&bln-base-1=and&val-base-1=2003&fld-base-1=YMD_date&docref=news/0FAF0D06BAD6D2BB#copy</a></li> <li>Hayward, M. (2003, June 27). Mosque gets permits, but issues remain. New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, NH). Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/0FC029BE9C7638CA">https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/0FC029BE9C7638CA</a>.</li> <li>Islamic Society of Greater (2012, January 12). History of the Islamic Society of Greater Manchester (ISGM). Islamic Society of Greater Manchester. Retrieved from <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120113004416/http:/www.isgm.net/Aboutus/index.php?mid=4">https://web.archive.org/web/20120113004416/http://www.isgm.net/Aboutus/index.php?mid=4#</a>.</li> <li>Islamic Society of New Hampshire, ISNH. (2019). Islamic Society of New Hampshire. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.isofnh.org/">https://www.isofnh.org/</a>.</li> <li>Lambert, D. (2006, June 22). Harmless as a "Modest Maiden". Granite Grok: Dominating the Political Bandwidth in New Hampshire. Retrieved from <a href="https://granitegrok.com/blog/2006/06/post_4">https://granitegrok.com/blog/2006/06/post_4</a>.</li> <li>Wang, B., & Associated Press. (2005, March 28). Islamic Community Putting Down Roots. Concord Monitor. Retrieved from <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120509191933/http:/www.concordmonitor.com/article/islamic-community-putting-down-roots">https://web.archive.org/web/20120509191933/http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/islamic-community-putting-down-roots</a>.</li> </ul>National <ul><li>Donahue, B. (2016, August 16). What it Takes to Build a Mosque in New Hampshire. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-mosque-new-hampshire/">https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-mosque-new-hampshire/</a>.</li> <li>Jacobs, S. (2017, October 14). Muslims in New Hampshire pray for long-stalled mosque's opening. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/10/14/muslims-pray-for-long-awaited-mosque-opening/Ece4uAs4HzA38j75jVyk7O/story.html">https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/10/14/muslims-pray-for-long-awaited-mosque-opening/Ece4uAs4HzA38j75jVyk7O/story.html</a>.</li> <li>Stevens, R. (2015, November 9). A mosque grows slowly amid opposition in New Hampshire. The Eagle-Tribune. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.eagletribune.com/news/new_hampshire/a-mosque-grows-slowly-amid-opposition-in-new-hampshire/article_8db5e937-53ee-5cfa-8d99-eb3ddec4eca1.html">https://www.eagletribune.com/news/new_hampshire/a-mosque-grows-slowly-amid-opposition-in-new-hampshire/article_8db5e937-53ee-5cfa-8d99-eb3ddec4eca1.html</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/. Title A name given to the resource Manchester, NH Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. NH_01, occurring in Manchester, NH, 03104 from 2003 to 2007 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Eve Berrie https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/5f4fbcb134cda5a7d015c729e76d3f69.png bcda5d414de99f6ffa2a865a2196dd7a 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 Fabbre, A. (2017). From left, Islamic Foundation of the Southwest Suburbs President Tamveer Iqbal and foundation members Zaki Basalath, Mahmood Akhter and Syed Pasha in front of the Plainfield former church building [Online image]. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/ct-plainfield-mosque-vote-met-20170919-story.html">https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/ct-plainfield-mosque-vote-met-20170919-story.html.</a> https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/06880f6cf821d46f92a28c4ed385a7dc.png fd523c66fca0ea15f8e0b45f53f2b656 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 Illinois 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. Il_18 Location The location of the interview Plainfield, IL Date August 7-September 18, 2017 Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 23616 W. Main St, Plainfield, Illinois 60544 Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. JR94+8H Coordinates Enter the coordinates for the location, if they are available. 41.6183° N, 88.1935° W Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="https://ifsws.org/">The Islamic Foundation of the Southwest Suburbs</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance Public Campaign/Protest; Local Ordinance Last Updated Date revised. November 4, 2019 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. On Monday, August 8th of year 2017, the Islamic Foundation of the Southwest Suburb in Plainfield, Illinois applied for a special use permit to open a Muslim community center on Main Street. However, The Plainfield Village Board rejected the request due to objections and concerns from Plainfield residents over traffic and parking spaces in nearby residential areas. A group of residents had drafted a petition asking the village board to deny the application. Even though the petition garnered only 69 signatures, the village board still rejected the Muslim community’s proposal. A revised proposal addressing some of the neighbors’ concerns was rejected as well. After claims of racial and religious discrimination and a strong public support for the mosque project, the Plainfield Village Board approved the project at its meeting on September 18th, 2017. Proposed Project In addition to a 38-space asphalt parking lot next to the building, the Muslim community center provides spaces for worship, storage, and other facilities useful to the people using the community center. Along with small playground equipment nearby, the community center is approximately 2.2 ± acres with 2800± square feet of built space over two levels. Nearby residential areas and properties are at least 90 to 100 feet away from the community center and 40 to 50 feet away from the parking lot (Bogda, 2017). Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications Denied; then approved. After many complaints of discrimination, the Plainfield Village Board passed Basalath and his group’s proposal on September 18th, 2017. This allowed the Muslim community to operate the mosque and community center on its property in a residential-zoned district at 23616 W. Main. St Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. Basalath and Board Members Create Proposal Leaders of successful Muslim community center in Bolingbrook including Zaki Basalath-the secretary- and his group (the Islamic Foundation of the Southwest Suburbs, a non-profit organization) wanted to open a Muslim facility in Plainfield. Basalath and his group has held numerous prayer services in a storefront in Route 59 for ten years in the Plainfield area and earlier in the year of 2017, the group bought the former church site/Montessori school for $580,000 and requested the Plainfield Village Board for permission to open a Muslim community center. However, there were various concerns and objections from the public in terms of allowing the religious center to operate in a residential area. The Local Community and Public Protest The Muslim group had great dilemma and objection for their proposal from the Plainfield residents surrounding the desired location of the Mosque (Muslim community) due to traffic and parking concerns even though the location used to be a church and Montessori school in the past. A group of residents had drafted a petition asking the village board to deny the application. Even though the petition garnered only 69 signatures, the village board still rejected the Muslim community’s proposal. Basalath claimed that the opposition to his and his group’s request was motivated by racial and religious discrimination. Therefore, soon on September 18th, there was a meeting between the Southwest Suburban Activists and Illinois Stop Moving Backwards for reconsideration of the results, also urging local residents to attend and speak up in favor of the Muslim community. The Muslim group refused to give up on their Mosque proposal by organizing an online event called “Stand with Muslims in Plainfield to Demand Approval of a Mosque!” on Facebook, promoting and inviting Plainfield residents to join the Plainfield Village Board meeting to support a local Muslim group which was denied to practice their religion freely-praying and worshipping- for no logical reason. The Revised Proposal After the second objection from the Plainfield village board, Basalath and members of the Islamic Foundation of the Southwest Suburbs revised their proposal utilizing the feedback and discussion from the meeting on August 7th when a motion to table the discussion was voted down. “The revised proposal included: no parking on Ash street along the property’s frontage; dense landscaping to prevent headlights from shining into nearby homes; an occupancy limit of 114 people based on the existing capacity of 38 parking spaces in the parking lot; and ‘resident only’ parking on Maple Court” (Ortiz, 2018). After reviewing the revised proposal, the Village Board stated that the Mosque property usage was more reasonable and possible than the first proposal. Outcome After many failures and objections due to minor traffic and parking problems, the Muslim community center was able to move forward on September 18th by getting their proposal accepted due to numerous claims of religious and racial discrimination and an original no vote from those who were Muslims in Plainfield and other people who strongly supported the Muslim community. Over 100 people attended the meeting, and an overwhelming majority of people supported the construction of the Muslim Community Center and moved forward even though there were some restrictions and conditions including owners having to follow parking restrictions and installing a privacy fence for nearby residents. It was a rare case where many members of the public actually supported the Muslim community within their residential area. Therefore, there were several agreements made in terms of the operation of the community center, including the costs for design and engineering of the community center could not go over $1 million, and the overall construction could not cost over $4.8 million. Current Status For over a year of planning, raising profit, and construction, the mosque in Plainfield opened on May 11th, 2018. There was an open house and ribbon-cutting the day before the Mosque officially opened to the public. The public officials and residents of Plainfield took tours of the Muslim Community Center, “ate food the foundation served, and even participated in a Q&A session with members of the Muslim community” (Ortiz, 2018). Basalath also stated that the Muslim community received many different welcoming phone calls and gifts delivered to them which made him realize how warm of a community Plainfield actually is. References Enter list of sources cited using the proper format. Local <ul><li>Antinori, Shannon and Staff, Patch. (2017, August 28th). ‘Stand with Muslims in Plainfield’ Event Planned After Muslim Center Voted Down. Plainfield Local News. Retrieved from <a href="https://patch.com/illinois/plainfield/stand-muslims-plainfield-event-planned-after-muslim-center-voted-down">https://patch.com/illinois/plainfield/stand-muslims-plainfield-event-planned-after-muslim-center-voted-down</a>.</li> <li>Plainfield trustees approve site plan for Pace lot. (2017, September 22). Real Estate Monitor Worldwide. Retrieved from <a href="https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:5PJ2-S9R1-F11P-X3RB-00000-00&context=1516831"></a>.</li> <li>Mallory, M. (2017, September 19). Plainfield trustees allow attorney to draft ordinance to allow mosque in neighborhood. Herald News, The (Joliet, IL). Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/16704B260C7DFB98">https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/16704B260C7DFB98</a>.</li> </ul>Regional <ul><li>Fabbre, Alicia (2017, September 20th). Suburban mosque proposal advances despite opposition from some neighbors. Chicago tribune. <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/ct-plainfield-mosque-vote-met-20170919-story.html">https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/ct-plainfield-mosque-vote-met-20170919-story.html</a>.</li> <li>Hush, Chris (2017, September 18th). Proposed Plainfield Mosque Approved After Initial Rejection. NBC 5 Chicago. <a href="https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Planned-Plainfield-Mosque-Approved-After-Initial-Rejection-445558553.html">https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Planned-Plainfield-Mosque-Approved-After-Initial-Rejection-445558553.html</a>.</li> <li>Watson, J. (2008, Mar 01). Prayer chain: A world of worship -- here at home. Indianapolis Star Retrieved from <a href="https://login.proxy.library.emory.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/docview/240975345?accountid=10747"></a></li> </ul>National <ul><li>Mallory, M. (2017, September 13). Plainfield residents speak out in support of Muslim group. Herald News, The (Joliet, IL). Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/166E896A702EF600">https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/166E896A702EF600</a>. Ortiz, Alex (2018, May 13th). Plainfield mosque opens its doors after a year of planning. The Herald-News. <a href="https://www.theherald-news.com/2018/05/11/plainfield-mosque-opens-its-doors-after-a-year-of-planning/a66gg73/">https://www.theherald-news.com/2018/05/11/plainfield-mosque-opens-its-doors-after-a-year-of-planning/a66gg73/</a>.</li> <li>Tucker, G. (2017, October 11). Plainfield mosque gets last stamp of approval. Bugle, The (Niles, IL). Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/1677BF3DB7D7EDD0">https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/1677BF3DB7D7EDD0</a>.</li> </ul>Other files: Bogda, Andrew and Proulx, Jonathan (2017, June 16th). Special Use for Religious Assembly (Public Hearing). Local Plan Commission. <a href="https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/80332/Plainfield_Community_Center_Staff_Report_and_Photos.pdf">https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/80332/Plainfield_Community_Center_Staff_Report_and_Photos.pdf</a>. 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 Plainfield, IL Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. IL_18, occurring in Plainfield, IL, 60544 from August to September 2017 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Yubin Kwon Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/c01946305b7c6b26a2d7cf7255a3bec0.jpg eb438edeb6f6620aa4adedeee24a37bc 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 Lopez and Associates (2013). Rendering of the proposed Islamic center in Lomita. [Online image]. Retrieved June 18, 2020 from https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/islamic-center-lawsuit-lomita-settled.html. 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 California 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. Ca_05 Location The location of the interview Lomita, CA Date 2010-2013 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. The city of Lomita, California rejects a proposal by the Islamic Center of South Bay (ICSB) for an expansion of a new center on its property. The city states that the rejection is based on residents’ concerns over increased traffic and noise as well as the project’s size and fit with the neighborhood. Members of the ICSB allege anti-Islamic sentiment, and CAIR-LA files a federal lawsuit on behalf of ICSB against the city. The denial prompts a DOJ investigation and, eventually, a DOJ lawsuit under RLUIPA. Lomita and the DOJ settle the suit in 2013 along with a settlement in ICSB’s lawsuit, clearing the way for ICSB to bring a new, successful application to the city council. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 25816 Walnut St, Lomita, CA 90717 Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. QMQQ+G8 Lomita, California Proposed Project Islamic center; mosque expansion Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="http://masjidalnoor.org/about/">Islamic Center of South Bay</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial; public campaign; bias-related incident Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications approved (with restrictions; following lawsuit and settlement) Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. On June 8, 2009 an initial hearing was held before the City of Lomita Planning Commission for the proposed redevelopment of the Islamic Center of South Bay (ICSB). Initial specifications for the redevelopment included a proposed sanctuary consisting of 2,370 square feet, a proposed building area of 16,851 square feet, and a proposed 74 additional parking spaces. During the meeting, the architect for the project, Shakil Patel, addressed residents’ concerns about the project, including “the location and height of the mosque windows, the traffic and noise issues” and “the distance between the buildings” (Planning Commission Notes 6/8). After commissioners asked Mr. Patel questions about the project, Commissioner Dever suggested that the project be continued and that residents have an opportunity to voice their opinions about the project. Initial public reactions were not positive. Residents were primarily concerned over the additional noise and traffic that the project would create. On July 1 and August 12 of 2009, two community meetings were held so that the Islamic Center of South Bay could revise their initial project. These revisions were brought before the Planning Commission in a meeting on September 14, 2009. In this meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-3 in favor of recommending the project for approval. Residents continued to express their concerns about the project leading up to the city council meeting. On March 2, 2010, after a five-hour hearing, the Lomita City Council unanimously voted to reject the proposed redevelopment. Some of the project’s supporters alleged that religion played an important role in the decision. City Councilman Tim King contended that the decision was based on the structure’s location and the coding changes that would have been required (KPCC, 2010). Importantly, the rejection of the redevelopment allowed for the Islamic Center of South Bay to come back with another plan (”Lomita Stops Mosque Expansion,” KPCC, 2010). On November 18, 2011, the United States Department of Justice announced that it had begun a formal civil rights investigation over the rejection of the proposed redevelopment. Officials stated that the investigation was triggered after DOJ officials had read reports of the mosque’s denial (Green, 2011). While the DOJ investigation was still ongoing, the Islamic Center of South Bay on March 21, 2012 filed a lawsuit against the City of Lomita, seeking “damages and reimbursement for costs incurred during a planning process that has lasted more than three years” (Flaccus, 2012). To date, we have been unable to find the original lawsuit filed. On January 11, 2013, it was announced that the City of Lomita had reached a conditional settlement with the Islamic Center of South Bay. “The agreement [allowed] the Islamic Center of South Bay to reapply to complete the expansions. It also [called] for the city to process the new application promptly and to waive application fees, with a caveat that if the new application is denied again, the lawsuit may resume” (“Islamic Center Reaches Settlement,” KPCC, 2013). On March 8, 2013, the DOJ filed a complaint and agreed order against Lomita, alleging that Lomita violated RLUIPA by creating a substantial burden for ICSB community members to practice their religion in their denial of the redevelopment. The agreed order affirmed the city’s settlement with the ICSB and mandated certain record-keeping and training requirements for city officials. On September 9, 2013, the Planning Commission discussed the ICSB’s new application. After a long public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 in favor of the redevelopment. On October 7, 2013, the City Council reviewed the new application, which contained changes such as a 7,000 square-foot increase in the site’s size after the purchase of a new lot and 20 more parking spaces (Green, 2013). The project was approved in the meeting by a unanimous vote. Construction was underway by 2014 and today the Islamic Center of South Bay’s redevelopment plans appear to have been completed and the site is operational. References Enter list of sources cited using the proper format. <ul><li>Green, Nick. (2012, March 22). Discrimination is alleged. Religion: Islamic Center says the City Council violated federal law in rejecting its renovation plans. Daily Breeze, p. 1A. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Green, Nick. (2011, November 9). Planning officials capture 2 seats. Daily Breeze, p. 4A. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Green Staff Writer, N. (2011, November 18). Mosque rejection spurs inquiry. Lomita: Feds ask city officials why expansion of Islamic Center was blocked. Daily Breeze, p. 3A. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Green, Nick. (2011, October 12). 3 running for 2 council seats. Lomita: A previous challenger faces pair from planning board. Daily Breeze, p. 3A. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Justice Department reaches agreement with Lomita, Calif., to protect religious exercise. (2013, February 1). Office of Public Affairs, Department of Justice. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-agreement-lomita-calif-protect-religious-exercise"> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-agreement-lomita-calif-protect-religious-exercise</a>. </li> </ul> Year Year the case began. 2010 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 Lomita, CA Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. CA_05, occurring in Lomita, CA, 90717 from 2010 to 2013 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/7b7adce9fe578de7f200966c60dfb481.jpg a9de4e7d346141f522cc38b9e7ddbf46 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 Minnesota 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. Mn_04 Location The location of the interview St. Anthony, MN Date 2012-2014 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. After the denial of a conditional use permit for an Islamic center in St. Anthony, Minnesota, Muslim community leaders request a DOJ probe to investigate bias. City officials claim denial is based on a zoning conflict because the property is located in an area zoned for light-industrial use. The Muslim community alleges unequal treatment and files a federal RLUIPA lawsuit. Two years later, the DOJ also sues St. Anthony for RLUIPA violation. The city eventually settles both lawsuits, allowing the Islamic Center to occupy parts of the property it purchased and reserving other parts for commercial use. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 3055 Old Hwy 8, St. Anthony, 55418 MN Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. 2QFR+J5 St Anthony, Minnesota Proposed Project Islamic center Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. Abu-Huraira Islamic Center Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance Administrative denial; legislation Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications approved (with restrictions, after lawsuit and settlement) Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. At a planning commission meeting on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, supporters of the proposed Abu-Huraira Islamic Center (AHIC) voiced their frustrations over the city’s decision to delay their plans by removing discussion of their application for a Conditional Use Permit from the meeting agenda. The proposed Islamic Center would be about 15-000 square feet and would occupy a former Medtronic building (French, 2012). At this meeting, supporters said they had worked with city officials throughout every phase of the project, but were frustrated when the city delayed the project to consider zoning issues at the site of the project. The zoning issues city officials were concerned over involved the question of whether a religious facility could operate in an area zoned for light-industrial use. A week prior, on March 13th, the St. Anthony City Council unanimously approved Resolution 12-037 that placed “a moratorium on Conditional Use Permits for assemblies, meeting lodges, or convention halls in the Light Industrial Zoning District to study whether to impose additional amendments to the Code” (City Council Minutes, 2012, March 13). This moratorium allowed city officials to suspend conditional use zoning permits. Chair Heinis of the Planning Commission clarified that the AHIC’s application would be taken up at a future meeting within the city’s 120-day statutory time frame for action on applications, after the City’s study had been completed. In a special meeting on June 4th, 2012, the St. Anthony City Planning Commission approved the project. Following this, a vote was set for June 12th for the city council to approve the project. At this June 12th meeting, residents made “disparaging remarks” about the project during the public comments section prior to the vote (Mohr, 2012). One speaker, John Murlowski, is quoted as saying: “Islam is evil. There’s no other religion in the world that endorses violence” before he was cut off by Mayor Jerry Faust (French, 2012). The Islamic Center was rejected on a 4-1 to vote. The next day, on June 13th, the Council for American Islamic Relations-Minnesota asked the DOJ to conduct a probe into the city council’s vote as a potential violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). On October 29th, 2012 the United States Department of Justice announced that it had begun an official civil rights investigation over the rejection of the Islamic Center. Supporters of the mosque applauded the decision. After almost two years of investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in Minneapolis, the U.S. Department of Justice US announced on August 27, 2014 that it had filed an RLUIPA lawsuit against the city. The lawsuit alleged that the city had violated RLUIPA’s Equal Terms provision by allowing general assemblies but not religious ones and, as a result, that the city had imposed a substantial burden on the Abu-Huraira Islamic Center by denying their application. At a news conference in Minneapolis, the attorney general for the District of Minnesota, Andrew Luger, reiterated the DOJ’s reasoning that the city had violated the Islamic Center’s civil rights saying,“Under the same zoning language, the city had allowed other assemblies in the same neighborhood, including a union hall and a church” (Rathbun, 2014). This was the first time the DOJ had brought an RLUIPA case against a Minnesota city. It followed several other cases in the state where counties and municipalities had denied Muslim communities permits for houses of worship or schools (e.g., in Blaine, Plymouth, Wilmar, and Bloomington). On December 9th, 2014, the city and the government reached a settlement, allowing a Planned Use Development at the property that the Islamic Center purchased. The Planned Use Development agreement allows Abu-Huraira to occupy the St. Anthony Business Center for religious services. The settlement also stipulates that the city will not discriminate against Abu-Huraira or any other religious groups based on zoning laws and that city officials must receive training about RLUIPA. Year Year the case began. 2012 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 St. Anthony, MN Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. MN_04, occurring in St. Anthony, MN 55418 from 2012 to 2014 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/90cc03a8095012f61b6c24ba91f6581b.png 0b42bcb5dbc527a401169a618229919c 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 New Jersey 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. Nj_01 Location The location of the interview Wayne, NJ Date 2003-2008 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. The Township of Wayne in New Jersey delayed a mosque’s building application for three years and eventually sought to seize the purchased property under eminent domain. The mosque sued under RLUIPA and the DOJ filed an amicus brief against the Township of Wayne. A court went on to agree with the DOJ that the use of eminent domain in this specific case violated RLUIPA. The case was settled in 2008. As a result of the settlement, the Muslim community sold the property to the Township in 2009 and subsequently found a new property in nearby Riverdale. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 1840 Hamburg Turnpike, Wayne, NJ 07470 Proposed Project mosque Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="http://aaccriverdale.org/">Albanian Associated Fund</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial; public campaign Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications AFF sold land to Twp after settlement; subsequently moved to different location outside of Twp Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. On October 5, 2001, the Albanian Associated Fund (AAF) finalized the purchase of a property along the Hamburg Turnpike in the Township of Wayne (“Wayne”) in northern New Jersey. A year later, the AAF submitted a Land Development Application and a Site Plan for a religious facility. The AAF met with the Township of Wayne Planning Board for the first time on March 24, 2003. The original plans for the development included a 39,392-square-foot recreation center and school as well as a 4,864-square-foot mosque (Ratish, 2004). After the first Planning Board meeting, the Township of Wayne’s planner found that the application met all permitting requirements in October of 2003. Over the next four years, the Planning Board continued to deliberate AAF’s application in more than twenty hearings. After deliberation, the Planning Board would eventually attempt to seize the AAF’s property through the use of eminent domain. This extended span of meetings is very much not the norm and eventually led the AAF to accuse Wayne of possessing a bias against Muslims. Shortly after the initial hearing, in November 2003, the Township of Wayne held a public vote to approve an Open Space Referendum. In January of 2004, the township created the Open Space Committee, which was chaired by the mayor. The goal of this referendum and subsequent committee was to set aside parcels of land for preservation. One such parcel was the land that the AAF had spent years trying to develop. While the AAF’s application was still under discussion by the Planning Board, the Township began eminent domain proceedings to condemn the group’s property for open space preservation. In Planning Board meetings from 2003 to 2006, city officials raised concerns over many different aspects, ranging from traffic and noise to concerns about the water level of the area and the rocky terrain. In an effort to assuage these concerns, civil engineer Arthur Hanson explained stormwater plans at a special Planning Board meeting on February 3, 2005. Residents, however, continued to oppose the project. In a coordinated effort to oppose the mosque project, residents of Wayne formed the “Property Protection Group” (PPG). According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which served as legal counsel for the AAF, the PPG “[had]...attempted to prevent the Muslims from locating in Wayne, complaining about minarets, calls to prayer, and describing the Mosque as ‘a public nuisance’” (Becket). On March 14, 2005, the Planning Board adopted the aforementioned Open Space and Recreation Plan. This plan listed the undeveloped land in Wayne, but “did not prioritize properties for acquisition as required by the Open Space Ordinance” (AAF v. Wayne Complaint). In February of 2006, the township offered the mosque $510,000 in compensation for the property and suggested alternative locations for the project. The AAF refused to sell the property. This led to the township ending the AAF’s application process on March 8th and beginning the condemnation process shortly after. In July, the AAF sued the township for trying to seize the land under eminent domain. As mentioned previously, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty served as legal counsel to the AAF. In response to the suit and the condemnation process, a federal judge temporarily blocked Wayne from seizing the property. In late January of 2007, the Planning Board officially vetoed the mosque project with a 7-0 vote. On February 23, 2007, it was reported that the AAF would go before a federal court judge with the complaint against the township in April. The township filed a request for summary judgement and claimed that the eminent domain proceedings did not fall under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). On July 24, the DOJ backed the AAF lawsuit and alleged that the property was taken in order to stop the AAF’s project. The DOJ also recommended that the court deny the township’s request for summary judgement. Part of the DOJ’s reasoning included the fact that the property, which was intended to be used for religious purposes, was seized by eminent domain. Thus, the DOJ stated that the AAF’s case did indeed have standing because of the intended religious use of the property. On October 1, 2007, a district court reflected the DOJ’s view when it ruled that RLUIPA can apply to the case and that the case could go to trial. There is no public record of the settlement between the AAF and Wayne, but in December of 2008, the Township approved the sale agreement for the land to be sold. On June 16, 2009, the AAF sold the property for just over $1,000,000. The AAF has since moved to a site located at 90 Riverdale Road in Riverdale, New Jersey. Last Updated Date revised. July 1, 2020 Year Year the case began. 2003 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 Wayne, NJ Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. NJ_01, occurring in Wayne, NJ 07470 from 2003 to 2008 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/81716a2f121477b733e7a3773296774e.jpg ac3af9148496773b79d4847086a88046 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 Illinois 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. Il_02 Location The location of the interview Morton Grove, IL Date 2002 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. The Village of Morton Grove denies a Muslim school a special use permit to add a mosque and increased classroom space on its 4.5-acre property. The denial follows intense opposition from community members voicing concerns over traffic, parking, and noise. However, expressions of anti-Muslim sentiment and an incident of vandalism also occur. A legal case following the denial involves complaints against the city and the school by a neighborhood opposition group as well as an RLUIPA lawsuit brought by the school against the village. The Department of Justice’s Community Relations Services mediates a settlement in the RLUIPA case. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 8601 Menard Ave, Morton Grove, IL 60053 Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. 26QH+3H Morton Grove, Illinois Proposed Project mosque (new mosque construction; and expansion of existing facilities for school) Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="https://mccchicago.org/">Muslim Community Center</a> (Muslim Education Center) Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial; public campaign; legal campaign; bias-related incident Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications approved (with restrictions; after private lawsuit and DOJ mediation) Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. With two schools and two mosques, the Muslim Community Center (MCC) is one of the largest and oldest Muslim organizations in the Chicago metro area. In December 2019 it celebrated its 50th anniversary. The controversy over the expansion project for its Muslim Education Center (MEC), K-8 school, dates to November 2002 when MCC submitted a site plan to add a mosque and increased classroom space on its 4.5-acre property in the Village of Morton Grove. The proposal met with vocal resistance from neighbors who raised concerns over traffic, parking, and noise. However, expressions of anti-Muslim sentiment and an incident of vandalism also occurred. The village denied MCC’s petition after six months and hours of testimony before various commissions and boards. The legal dispute that followed involved complaints against the city and MCC by a neighborhood opposition group as well as MCC’s RLUIPA case against the village. The RLUIPA case was resolved in June 2003 when a settlement mediated by the Department of Justice’s Community Relations Services allowed MCC to receive a special use permit subject. Although the SUP was subject to more than 30 restrictions and despite ongoing public and legal campaigns, MCC held its first communal prayer in the new mosque in late August 2008. MCC’ submission of expansion plans in Morton Grove came after multiple months of debate on traffic and parking. Neighbors had complained before the villages Traffic and Safety Commission (TSC) about street parking during MCC events, particularly during communal Friday prayers and Ramadan gatherings. While initially MCC had used its gym to hold prayer services for students and staff, it later began opening its doors to members of the local Muslim community for congregational Friday prayers. Discussions before TSC were attended by about 150 residents who urged the village to curb street parking by visitors during MEC events. An agreement reached with neighbors included restrictions on street parking. MCC further promised to address off-street parking in an expansion plan it was in the process of submitting (“Muslim Center Parking Pact Nears Finish,” 2002, October 10). The site plan MCC submitted with its special use application in November 2002 included classroom additions to the existing school building as well as a mosque for around 600 worshippers. Initial design plans for the mosque also showed a 45-ft dome and a 60-ft minaret. Parking issues were addressed by raising the number of off-street parking spaces from 70 to 144. During discussions before the village’s Appearance Commission and the Traffic and Safety Commission opponents rehashed concerns about parking from previous months (“Panel Reviews Mosque Traffic,” 2002, December 12). A revised plan that raised off-street parking to 210 spaces was discussed first before the Plan Commission on February 19, 2003. Over the next three months the Plan Commission and the Village Board heard more than 13 hours of testimony. Ultimately, the Village Board voted in late April to follow the Plan Commission’s unanimous recommendation for denial (“Morton Grove Rejects Plan for Mosque,” May 1, 2003). Concerns over traffic, parking, and noise remained central in the public debate over MCC’s expansion project, but opponents’ campaigns were also colored by expressions of anti-Muslim sentiment and an incident of vandalism. “There’s a lot of underlying agendas and hidden agendas here,” Village Administrator Larry Arft had commented during the earlier parking controversy (“Village Denies Charge of MCC Area Parking,” 2002, November 14). One Patrick Kansoer emerged as a central figure in the neighborhood opposition. After the Village Board had denied MCC’s application in April 2003, Kansoer requested the village stop all general worship at the school alleging that MCC was violating village ordinances by operating a house of worship without a special use permit. Later the same year Kansoer and other residents formed the Morton Grove Organization (MGO) that filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the village for failing to enforce its zoning ordinance. The group later amended their lawsuit to include a charge of “conspiracy” against the village (“Resident Group Files Revised Suit,” 2004, February 19). In what could count as outright displays of anti-Muslim bigotry or, at best, grave insensitivity, MGO members staged several public events as their lawsuit made its way through the court system. In one such case, the group protested the discussion over a settlement agreement between the village and MCC by displaying pigs on MGO members’ lawns (Katz, 2004, June 17; also see Routliffe, 2003, September 25). In late September 2003, MCC filed a federal lawsuit in which it asked for $5 million in damages from the village. Among others, the lawsuit alleged that the village had violated RLUIPA’s equal terms and unreasonable limitations provisions (Falsani, 2003, October 1). The Department of Justice responded to the lawsuit by opening a formal investigation. At the same time, mediators from the DOJ’s Community Relations Service began facilitating face-to-face meetings between the village, MCC and neighbors (”Village, MCC Begin Talks,” 2004, January 1). Although MGO had left the mediation proceedings by April, the village and MCC announced in early June that they had reached a settlement. As a result of the settlement MCC brought a revised SUP application before the village. It included a reduced maximum occupancy of 525 worshipers and off-street parking for 244 vehicles. Over the next six months, the application made it through the village’s regular hearing process until, on November 22, 2004, the Village Board finally approved the Special Use Permit. The approval, however, came with more than 30 restrictions including a reduction in the height of both the dome and the minaret, a 10 p.m. curfew on non-religious use, and no high-school classes (Katz, 2004, December 30). A dispute over a right-of-way MCC sought for additional off-street parking was only temporarily resolved and resulted in further court proceedings later on (Katz, 2008, January 24). Part of the agreement over the special use permit required MCC to suspend all non-school related events at its site during construction. After renting space in public buildings for Friday services and Ramadan events for more than two years, MCC held the first congregational prayer service in its new mosque on August 31, 2008. References Enter list of sources cited using the proper format. <ul><li>Commission discusses Muslim center parking. (2002, September 12). Morton Grove Champion, p. 6. Available from NewsBank</li> <li>Editorial: A fair shake for MCC plan. (2002, November 21). Skokie Review, p. 16. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Falsani, Cathleen. (2003, October 1). Muslim group seeking mosque sues Morton Grove. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 30. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Katz, Nick. (2008, January 24). Judge rules for MCC in land lawsuit. Morton Grove Champion. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Katz, Nick. (2005, November 17). MCC breaks ground for mosque addition. Morton Grove Champion, p. 5. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Katz, Nick. (2005, March 17). Muslim Community Center drops lawsuit against village. Morton Grove Champion, p. 003. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Katz, Nick. (2004, December 30). MCC Mosque plan finally approved. Morton Grove Champion (IL), p. 005. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Katz, Nick. (2004, June 17). Trustees OK MCC pact. Morton Grove Champion, p. 3. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com. </li> <li>Katz, Nick. (2004, June 10). Neighborhood group to pursue lawsuit. Morton Grove Champion, p. 003. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>MCC neighbors plan lawsuit against village. (2003, June 26). Morton Grove Champion. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com. </li> <li>MCC submits plan for mosque addition. (2002, December 5). Morton Grove Champion, p. 8. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Mendieta, Ana. (2004, June 9). Village reaches deal on mosque - Muslim site in Morton Grove to host 500 worshippers. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 18. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Morton Grove rejects plan for mosque. (2003, May 1). Skokie Review (IL), p. 9. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Muslim center parking pact nears finish. (2002, October 10). Morton Grove Champion, p. 8. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Muslim center submits revised mosque plan. (2003, February 13). Skokie Review, p. 8. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Panel rejects mosque plan. (2003, April 10). Morton Grove Champion, p. 12. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Panel reviews mosque traffic. (2002, December 12). Skokie Review (IL), p. 9. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Resident group files revised suit. (2004, February 19). Morton Grove Champion, p. 3. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Routliffe, Kathy. (2003, September 25). Police, FBI investigate threat letter. Morton Grove Champion, p. 3. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Sweeney, Annie. (2002, December 24). Vandal shatters glass at suburban Muslim center. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 14. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Suit seeks to block prayers at center. (2003, September 11). Morton Grove Champion, p. 3. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Village, MCC begin talks. (2004, January 1). Morton Grove Champion, p. 3. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Village denies charge on MCC area parking. (2002, November 14). Morton Grove Champion, p. 6. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> </ul> Last Updated Date revised. June 29, 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 Morton Grove, IL Description An account of the resource The Village of Morton Grove denies a Muslim school a special use permit to add a mosque and increased classroom space on its 4.5-acre property. The denial follows intense opposition from community members voicing concerns over traffic, parking, and noise. However, expressions of anti-Muslim sentiment and an incident of vandalism also occur. A legal case following the denial involves complaints against the city and the school by a neighborhood opposition group as well as an RLUIPA lawsuit brought by the school against the village. The Department of Justice’s Community Relations Services mediates a settlement in the RLUIPA case. 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 Approved Built DOJ Public Campaign https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/b59004af5aa9aea88d68179568b2a590.jpg a7709842fcdd9acb4613461fe30e10e9 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 Illinois 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. A mosque operating out of a former school building in the Village of Berkeley, IL wanted to build a 13,000-square-foot addition to its Center, including a dome and minaret. Additionally, the mosque planned to renovate the exterior of the building. The Albanian-American Islamic Center had been operating continuously on the property since 1982. In 2001, the property was rezoned as a business district which required the Center to apply for an exception to construct the expansion. After more than 3.5 years of public opposition and permit denials, the DOJ launched an investigation. The investigation was closed when the Village approved the project in March 2008. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Il_03 Location The location of the interview Berkeley, IL Date 2004-2008 Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 5825 Charles Rd, Berkeley, IL 60163 Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. V3QP+M6 Berkeley, Illinois Proposed Project mosque expansion Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/XHAMIJASHQIP/">Albanian-American Islamic Center</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial; public campaign Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications approved (after DOJ investigation) Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. DOJ Closes RLUIPA Investigation After Illinois Village Allows Mosque Expansion* On April 4, 2008, the Civil Rights Division notified the Village of Berkeley, Illinois that it was closing its investigation into whether the Village had violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by refusing to allow the Albanian Islamic Center’s 13,000-square foot expansion plan. The Division closed its investigation after the Village approved resolutions on March 18 permitting the mosque, which had operated on the site for more than 25 years, to go forward with its expansion. In 1982, the Albanian Islamic Center purchased a 4.5 acre parcel of land housing a former school building on St. Charles Road, in Berkeley, Illinois and began holding religious services there. The Center has operated continuously at that location since then. The Center is the only Islamic institution in the Village of Berkeley and the only mosque in Illinois that aims specifically to serve Albanian immigrants. In 2001, the land on which the mosque sits was rezoned as a business district, which permits only tax-generating businesses and residences built on top of ground-floor businesses. Existing uses were grandfathered, but alterations to existing uses were prohibited unless an exception was given. Between January 2004 and May 2007, the Center made four applications to construct an approximately 13,000-square-foot addition to the Center, including a minaret. The Center proposed to expand to accommodate its growing membership and to give the Center a more mosque-like appearance. The Center’s religious services were often crowded with congregants spilling out into the halls. The Village denied all four of these applications. On August 3, 2007, the United States notified the Village that it had opened an investigation into whether the Village had violated RLUIPA by denying the Center’s applications for permission to expand. On March 18, the Village approved the Center’s proposed expansion and the Division closed its investigation in response. *Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. (2008, March/April). DOJ closes RLUIPA investigation after Illinois village allows mosque expansion. Religious Freedom in Focus, 32. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/religious-freedom-focus-volume-32">https://www.justice.gov/crt/religious-freedom-focus-volume-32</a>. Last Updated Date revised. June 27, 2020 Year Year the case began. 2004 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 Berkeley, IL Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. IL_03, occurring in Berkeley, IL, 60163 from 2004 to 2008 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 Approved Built DOJ Expansion Planning and Zoning 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