[jessyhalm]

I saw this and think it is complete bullshit. Apparently a pig farmer is having to shut down his operation because of a new mosque that is going to move in next to it. I think this is crap. What gets me though is that this thing is more common but doesn't get the attention this does because Muslims are involved this time. In the town I grew up in a bar that had been open for years was forced to close because a church moved in next to it and the law states you can't have a place that sells or serves alcohol within so many feet of a church. Personally I do not think any religious group should be able to move into a neighborhood and then force already existing businesses out or tell people what they can or can't do on their property due to these kinds of laws.

Locals Start Pig Racing To Deter Mosque Construction | Sweetness & Light

[Vemnagelignc]

That's crap. Religious institutions, Christian, Muslim, Bahai, Whatever, should have juristiction over their land ONLY.

[Soresbox]

I agree.

[Usogwdkb]

I think that whoever was there first should have the rights, not the one that moves in after the fact. I agree that a bar shouldn't open up next to church because of the noise factor and the happenings around the bar but if the bar is there first, the church should have no right to complain. This pig guy should not be forced to give up his pig races or his pigs because Muslims moved next door to him. They obviously didn't check out the neighborhood well so, tough shit!

[PypeMaypetasy]

wow that is bullshit.....................

[Vemnagelignc]

wow that is bullshit.....................

Well, pig shit.

But yeah.

[WebDocMan]

I saw this and think it is complete bullshit. Apparently a pig farmer is having to shut down his operation because of a new mosque that is going to move in next to it. I think this is crap. What gets me though is that this thing is more common but doesn't get the attention this does because Muslims are involved this time. In the town I grew up in a bar that had been open for years was forced to close because a church moved in next to it and the law states you can't have a place that sells or serves alcohol within so many feet of a church. Personally I do not think any religious group should be able to move into a neighborhood and then force already existing businesses out or tell people what they can or can't do on their property due to these kinds of laws.

Locals Start Pig Racing To Deter Mosque Construction | Sweetness & Light

In the case of the mosque, though, the article just says that the Islamic group has asked the farmer about moving. That is a request rather than seeking forced cessation through court. From what I am reading, that isn't going to happen because the pig farmer won't do that, and he and the neighbours aren't happy about the mosque being there.

IMO, it would be illegal to stop the pig farm business on account of the new mosque, and also shutting down the bar next to the new church in the second matter you mentioned. The businesses in the two instances cited were there before the mosque and church. They must have been legal under any zoning code when set up or pre-existed the creation of a zoning code or else they would have been shut down after they were set up. Thus, they are pre-existing legal uses. In the mosque case, the zoning code, if any, likely allows both uses for the mosque and the pig farm. In the case of the church, you cited the existence of a zoning code about distance requirements between churches and bars, but the bar was obviously there before the church, so it should be considered 'grandfathered' as a legal 'nonconforming use' under zoning code law.

[markbila]

It sounds illegal to stop these businesses to me. The businesses in the two instances cited were there before the mosque and church. They must have been legal under any zoning code when set up or pre-existed the creation of a zoning code or else they would have been shut down after they were set up. Thus, they are pre-existing legal uses and grandfathered as a continuing legal use as a 'nonconforming use' even if a subsequent zoning code would make them unlawful if attempted today.

I must say I was surpised. I would have thought non conforming rights, or non conforming use would have been applicable in such circumstances. I am aware of one case where new neighbours have protested over pre existing activities on health grounds, and STILL the existing business was able to draw on this.

If however there already has been a precedent set for a religious building as somebody suggested above, then perhaps there are special cases allowed in the case of places of worship?

If so, this is a bit scary IMO - because it enables religious groups (of all stripes) to forcibly shape a neighbourhood.

[Usogwdkb]

I must say I was surpised. I would have thought non conforming rights, or non conforming use would have been applicable in such circumstances. I am aware of one case where new neighbours have protested over pre existing activities on health grounds, and STILL the existing business was able to draw on this.

If however there already has been a precedent set for a religious building as somebody suggested above, then perhaps there are special cases allowed in the case of places of worship?

If so, this is a bit scary IMO - because it enables religious groups (of all stripes) to forcibly shape a neighbourhood.

I know of no case in my area where a business was forced to close because a religious facility opened next to it. I honestly don't think it's allowed!

[PypeMaypetasy]

Well, pig shit.

But yeah.

bucking for funniest poster kind of early are you not?

too funny you would be right that is pig shit!!!!!!!!!!!

[markbila]

I know of no case in my area where a business was forced to close because a religious facility opened next to it. I honestly don't think it's allowed!

I would be surprised if it was - however in the OP Partofme stated: What gets me though is that this thing is more common but doesn't get the attention this does because Muslims are involved this time. In the town I grew up in a bar that had been open for years was forced to close because a church moved in next to it and the law states you can't have a place that sells or serves alcohol within so many feet of a church.

[WebDocMan]

I must say I was surpised. I would have thought non conforming rights, or non conforming use would have been applicable in such circumstances. I am aware of one case where new neighbours have protested over pre existing activities on health grounds, and STILL the existing business was able to draw on this.

If however there already has been a precedent set for a religious building as somebody suggested above, then perhaps there are special cases allowed in the case of places of worship?

If so, this is a bit scary IMO - because it enables religious groups (of all stripes) to forcibly shape a neighbourhood.

I was editing my post after I posted it so I apologise but the changes are not material to what you quoted. I was just adding more factual tidbits to it.

Both businesses, IMO, are safe because they are legal land uses under any existing zoning code, if any code exists. If there is no zoning code, then people can pretty much do as they please with their property within the general law. Once a zoning code goes into place, any existing uses on a piece of property that do not conform with the new zoning code are 'grandfathered.' They are called 'nonconforming uses.' So long as the 'nonconforming use' continues without cessation on the property, the use is allowed indefinitely until someone stops using it as such. The reason for this is grounded in property rights. If the government would stop such an ongoing use, it would constitute a 'taking' without compensation under the US Constitution. Private land owners cannot tell others what uses they may do with a property so long as they conform with the law.

[WebDocMan]

I would be surprised if it was - however in the OP Partofme stated:

"What gets me though is that this thing is more common but doesn't get the attention this does because Muslims are involved this time. In the town I grew up in a bar that had been open for years was forced to close because a church moved in next to it and the law states you can't have a place that sells or serves alcohol within so many feet of a church."

It would be interesting in any links that partofme can find regarding this incident. It appears dead wrong to close a business under long established property law decisions for the reasons he cited. Accepting what he said as being accurate, obviously the bar when it was in operation was built without a church being within the distance requirement or else it would have never been allowed to function at all. The church came along and built itself within the distance requirement. This situation would then put the bar outside the law, but since the bar was legal when functioning, and the church's subsequent establishment is what put the bar outside the letter of the law, it should be deemed a 'nonconforming use' and still have been allowed to operate until such time as someone stopped using the property as a bar.

[fashikn]

Well, Sweetness and Light should get their facts straight before attempting to incite hatred.

This pig farmer, Craig Baker, was using the adjacent property ( with/without permission ? ) as open range for his pigs to sleep/shit/dig & whatever else pigs do. That might have been going on for some time, but I doubt adverse possession was claimed.
In any event, the Muslims wanted to begin construction on their property and asked Mr. Baker to remove his animals. But instead of complying and thanking them for the prior use of said land, he became petty and spiteful and resentful of the fact that this future use was being taken away from him.
So he thought up this assinine display. Muslims do not revere swine - that is another religion and another animal. Muslims consider pigs inferior animals. How staging races would bother the mosque is a disconnect with intelligence for old Mr. Baker. And he found a willing accomplice in this Sweetness and Light rag, along with many residents of this community.
Ignorance can rear its' head anywhere.
********************************

OSB-
Many municipalities attempt to legislate away " undesirable " elements, usually through zoning changes. Fortunately, Grandfather Clauses protect existing businesses. In the case of bars/taverns; once ownership changes hands, the new owner is denied a liquor license. That is the underhanded way that these " morality " laws are enforced.

[markbila]

It would be interesting in any links that partofme can find regarding this incident. It appears dead wrong to close a business under long established property law decisions for the reasons he cited. Accepting what he said as being accurate, obviously the bar when it was in operation was built without a church being within the distance requirement or else it would have never been allowed to function at all. The church came along and built itself within the distance requirement. This situation would then put the bar outside the law, but since the bar was legal when functioning, and the church's subsequent establishment is what put the bar outside the letter of the law, it should be deemed a 'nonconforming use' and still have been allowed to operate until such time as someone stopped using the property as a bar.

Thats my understanding of it too - although I am not familiar with the US I would be surprised if US property law is substantially different on this issue.

Re the Mosque - they should have been aware there was a pig farm close by prior to acquiring the land for the purpose of building a mosque. If they did not do their research - its not the pig farmer's problem - its theirs, and it is they who may need to review their plans.

Re the Church and the bar - IF there is a precedent, like you I would want to see evidence. I would have thought it unlikely, however if exceptions are made for religious groups/purposes it would be a concern IMO - and if it applies in the case of churches and bars, then one would expect, according to Law, that the same would apply to mosques and pig farms.

Either way, it could be used by religious groups (including minor sects) to force land use changes that could affect neighbourhoods, and be detrimental to communities - either economically or socially. I would be surpised if this occurs in the US - although I believe it CAN happen in some other countries. (for some reason Malaysia springs to mind - but I haven't got a specific example in mind).

[WebDocMan]

OSB-
Many municipalities attempt to legislate away " undesirable " elements, usually through zoning changes. Fortunately, Grandfather Clauses protect existing businesses. In the case of bars/taverns; once ownership changes hands, the new owner is denied a liquor license. That is the underhanded way that these " morality " laws are enforced.

Yeah, I know these kinds of stunts are pulled unfortunately. It's often the case with things like bars, and especially things like exotic dance clubs, tattoo shops, etc. Denial of a liquor licence with a new purchaser is an old stunt when there is public pressure and public objections to a particular business in a neighbourhood. Such establishments can appeal the denial and argue in court that it was merely pretextual and get the decision to deny the licence overturned, if in fact the denial is merely pretextual under some flimsy reasoning. The problem for many businesses, though, is that they cannot afford the litigation costs to set the wrongdoing aside, and those who play these games know that, so they do it. It's too bad the oaths of office to uphold the law and constitution mean so little to some officials.

[markbila]

Well, Sweetness and Light should get their facts straight before attempting to incite hatred.

This pig farmer, Craig Baker, was using the adjacent property ( with/without permission ? ) as open range for his pigs to sleep/shit/dig & whatever else pigs do. That might have been going on for some time, but I doubt adverse possession was claimed.
In any event, the Muslims wanted to begin construction on their property and asked Mr. Baker to remove his animals. But instead of complying and thanking them for the prior use of said land, he became petty and spiteful and resentful of the fact that this future use was being taken away from him.
So he thought up this assinine display. Muslims do not revere swine - that is another religion and another animal. Muslims consider pigs inferior animals. How staging races would bother the mosque is a disconnect with intelligence for old Mr. Baker. And he found a willing accomplice in this Sweetness and Light rag, along with many residents of this community.
Ignorance can rear its' head anywhere.
********************************

OSB-
Many municipalities attempt to legislate away " undesirable " elements, usually through zoning changes. Fortunately, Grandfather Clauses protect existing businesses. In the case of bars/taverns; once ownership changes hands, the new owner is denied a liquor license. That is the underhanded way that these " morality " laws are enforced.

couldn't access sweetness and light.

re grandfather clauses - yes - the case I referred to in my post above - re health issues - ceased to be an issue when the owner of the problem property decided to sell and move to other premises. The land could then not be used for the same purpose it had been used for earlier, as it was rezoned. They could not force a preexisting business to close, however once the current owner ceased to operate that business there was no problem.

I guess thats a backdoor way of changing land zoning, but in most cases you have to allow this to occur. In the case I was referring to there was a huge increase in demand for residential property, and to allow preexisting land use to continue indefinitely was not really viable.

Re liquor and churches being close together ... well - zoning on the grounds of public health issues (eg pig/chicken farms or stables adjacent to medium density housing) makes sense - but I'm not really sure about bars and churches. In my mind you would have a hard time justifying exclusions there ... LOL - maybe Churches adjacent to bars might be able to save more sinners?

[infollafago]

from the article

"Basically that I should package up my family and my business and find a place elsewhere," said Baker. "That’s ridiculous, they just bought the place one week prior and he’s telling me I should think about leaving."

That new owners deny they ever said anything like that, but Baker isn’t budging.
and from another site

Allam said if any interaction between the group and Baker was interpreted as a threat for Baker to vacate his land, it was unintentional.

"If we somehow communicated that to him, then we apologize," Allam said.

Allam said the races, should they continue, would have no bearing on Friday holy day services. Islamic association dismisses Katy pig races | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

So whatever the story is, he just seems like an ass.


seems to be a decent editorial -> Blue Bayou: In Katy, a swinish neighborhood dispute

and like lazarus said, they only wanted his cattle off of their land

The dispute began when the association asked Baker to remove his cattle from its newly bought land. The association plans to build a mosque, community center, athletic facilities and a school.

Baker agreed to move his cattle but thought the Muslims also wanted him off the land his family has lived on for more than 100 years. Texan Protests Mosque With Pig Races | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited

[Nikkytas]

Muslims are forbidden to eat pig.

In folklore terms, eating the meat of the pig is said to contribute to lack of morality and shame, plus greed for wealth, laziness, indulgence, dirtiness and gluttony. We insult a person by calling him or her a "Pig" when they demonstrate these characteristics. Muslims are forbidden by God to eat the meat of the pig (pork).

This is detailed in verses 2:173, 5:3, 6:145, and 16:115 of the Qur'an. An exemplary verse is quoted here: "He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

[Vemnagelignc]

It would be interesting in any links that partofme can find regarding this incident. It appears dead wrong to close a business under long established property law decisions for the reasons he cited. Accepting what he said as being accurate, obviously the bar when it was in operation was built without a church being within the distance requirement or else it would have never been allowed to function at all. The church came along and built itself within the distance requirement. This situation would then put the bar outside the law, but since the bar was legal when functioning, and the church's subsequent establishment is what put the bar outside the letter of the law, it should be deemed a 'nonconforming use' and still have been allowed to operate until such time as someone stopped using the property as a bar.

Maybe by "force" they meant really heavy small town societal pressure: as in, the guy didn't really have a choice if he wanted to stay in business... not necissarily a LEGAL reason...

Muslims are forbidden to eat pig.

Uh... we know.