Churches Putting Town Out of Business

[Doctrine1st]

STAFFORD, Texas — They are not the words one expects to hear from a politician or a Southerner, and Leonard Scarcella is both: "Our city has an excessive number of churches."

Scarcella is mayor of this Houston-area community, which has 51 churches and other religious institutions packed into its 7 square miles.

With some 300 undeveloped, potentially revenue-producing acres left in Stafford, officials are scrambling to find a legal way to keep more tax-exempt churches from building here.

"With federal laws, you can't just say, 'We're not going to have any more churches,' " Scarcella said. "We respect the Constitution, but 51 of anything is too much."

Stafford, population 19,227, is the largest city in Texas without a property tax, and it depends on sales taxes and business fees for revenue. Nonprofits have been attracted by its rapid growth and minimal deed restrictions. "It's thrown everything out of balance, plus providing zero revenue. Somebody's got to pay for police, fire and schools," City Councilman Cecil Willis said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-churches31jul31,0,6286040.story?coll=la-home-nation

 

[Machjo]

Hmmm.... Wouldn't one Christian church in one local community suffice?

 

[Ave Maria]

Hmmm.... Wouldn't one Christian church in one local community suffice?

It should suffice but unfortunately it does not. Jesus originally founded one Church, not the thousands of denominations we have today.

 

[Kelly]

There has been debate over doctrine since the upper room gathering in Acts, so it's nothing new. I think that the different denoms are akin to the different parts of the body, each serves a purpose and has a focus in terms of how God uses it.

 

[Machjo]

It should suffice but unfortunately it does not. Jesus originally founded one Church, not the thousands of denominations we have today.

Oops... I just just came up with a new interpretation of Matthew 1:1. I think it's time to create my new church. Needless to say, mine will be the only one to teach the correct interpretation (TM).

 

[Machjo]

But hey don't forget, each one of them has the right interpretation, while all the others are wrong!

 

[ksen]

Who does this town government think it is to say that there are "too many" churches within its borders? Obviously the town population doesn't think so.

 

[Norseman]

I'm concerned that eventually all we will have left in the US are churches because they pay no taxes. Everything else changes, and that lets new churches get built, but rarely to never do churches go away. I'd rather not see taxes on religious buildings, but think I've got a solution. Instead of directly taxing the building, it can be required to spend such and such amount of money charitably. For example, spending some money to provide food and shelter for the homeless. This way, churches that have lost most of their members won't have the funding to stay around, and the church members will have to crowd into a smaller number of churches, proportional to however many donating church members are in the area.

 

[Norseman]

Who does this town government think it is to say that there are "too many" churches within its borders? Obviously the town population doesn't think so.

How is that obvious?

 

[ksen]

How is that obvious?

It's obvious because there's enough demand in the town to keep the 51 churches open.

If nobody went there then the churches would shut down and the land would've been sold.

 

[Poke]

I smell anti-Christian bigotry.

How is "too many" church's a problem? Cutting into "sales taxes and business fees for revenue." doesn't seem credible. A Church doesn't replace a grocery store or any other business.

The article says a lot of people who go to these churches live out of town. So? They'd still go to local gas stations and restaurants in this town. Normally, attracting visitors is considered good for town revenues. These are all people putting money into the local economy without taking any money out (e.g. none of them have children in the town's schools).

Yes, church's use fire protection services. But, this is a very tiny cost.

 

[Jacey]

I smell anti-Christian bigotry.

You've got to be kidding.

Do a little homework on small town economics.

 

[ksen]

I smell anti-Christian bigotry.

How is "too many" church's a problem? Cutting into "sales taxes and business fees for revenue." doesn't seem credible. A Church doesn't replace a grocery store or any other business.

The article says a lot of people who go to these churches live out of town. So? They'd still go to local gas stations and restaurants in this town. Normally, attracting visitors is considered good for town revenues. These are all people putting money into the local economy without taking any money out (e.g. none of them have children in the town's schools).

Yes, church's use fire protection services. But, this is a very tiny cost.

I pretty much agree with you here. But I have to wonder is it so much an Anti-Christian bigotry or is it a hunger for tax revenue that is driving this and the churches are a convenient scapegoat.

How long has this town been incorporated? They seem to have done fine until now. Maybe they just need to do a better job managing their budget.

 

[TwinCrier]

Actually, churches DO pay taxes on buildings, always have. That's why Indianapolis Baptist got shut down. The only thing is donations to churches are tax deductible, but that's true of any non-profit organization. I think this gripe is unfounded.

 

[Chajara]

I don't think it's anti-Christian bigotry. They've already allowed a ton of churches. Apparently they way they've set up their laws is attractive to non-profit orginazations, the article said so.

I think what the problem is is that it's such a small town that the churches are a large enough proportion to where the amount of taxes they're not paying (that another business would be if they could use the land) is starting to make a huge difference in revenue. Am I close or way off?

 

[Poke]

I don't think it's anti-Christian bigotry. They've already allowed a ton of churches.

As I indicated before, I don't see these churches doing any financial harm to the town. So, what other motivation can be behind this anti-church drive?

Most of these churches, or at least the laws that allowed these churches, were probably in place before the current generation of city governance. So, it's not like they allowed these churches. The point of the article is that they're trying to find ways to block churches.

Apparently they way they've set up their laws is attractive to non-profit orginazations, the article said so.

Yet, the article identifies no such laws except for an absence of property taxes (which I don't think churches pay, anyway).

I think what the problem is is that it's such a small town that the churches are a large enough proportion to where the amount of taxes they're not paying (that another business would be if they could use the land) is starting to make a huge difference in revenue. Am I close or way off?

I don't think the churches take up much land. Most of these churches are tiny. What if a farmer owned the same amount of land these churches take up? There would be very little local revenue from the farm. And, until the recent Supreme Court ruling, the town couldn't take any of that land for commercial or private develpment. Yet, I don't recall there being any great cry across the land that farmers were killing towns.

Another factor, the town is being overran by hispanic immigrants. Hispanics harm local economies because they suck up more government services than they pay for. Most non-hispanic Americans prefer to live in English-speaking communities. The churches probably play a big role in attracting the hispanic immigrants, which would make them unpopular with many locals.

 

[Harpuia]

It should suffice but unfortunately it does not. Jesus originally founded one Church, not the thousands of denominations we have today.

More like... thousands upon thousands.

And then you have breakups within those denominations.