[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

^their "religious pursuit" doesn't have to mean destroying neighbourhood character or good architecture. If you let church boards decide what to do with their buildings they'll don silly things like paint over frescoes in white and deface the artistic integrity of the original architecture.

Idk it may sound super idealistic of me but I think that placing a heritage designation on a building that adds to the cultural character of an area is totally reasonable. And it certainly doesn't break the sacred separation of church and state.

Again, perhaps you don't see things their way religiously, and that's fine. What is usually universal is the mandate that churches have to help people.

I get the whole character thing but holy hell ("that's in bad taste, Wolf") we're beyond delusional if we can expect a christian, muslim, hindhu, sikh to put "artistic integrity of the original architecture" above their literally religious views or freedoms, which are protected.

It is a part of culture as well as humanity, but I can't expect that angle to be on the same tier of importance to those involved. These are not equals.

More importantly, it's about having to engage the city and a committee any time you want to do anything to your building. At minimum it's cumbersome and annoying; you're inviting another contentious cook into the kitchen.

At worst, it's crippling, if the church was hoping to expand, renovate, or do anything to accomodate its vision.

Originally Posted by michelleb

Would a heritage designation prevent the church from converting the building into housing in the hypothetical future? I'm guessing it would. That's becoming a trend for older traditional churches who find themselves unable to sustain a dwindling congregation but want to retain the building.

If so, I sympathize with them.

Heritage designation means they now need to get every change approved.

Simple projects now are government procedures. Imagine if your house was heritage approved, and the windows leak? Have fun...

Originally Posted by windypeg

It totally makes sense why the church wouldn't want the heritage designation, but the way they tried to argue it? Separation of church and state?!? There have already been some great projects in the city with churches converted to affordable housing. If that's what they were thinking of doing why not just say that? Hopefully the city would work with them, and if not then it's the city that looks bad. Instead they suggested that they think separation of church and state means the church is somehow exempt from the rules of the state which is outrageous and makes them look idiotic and frankly terrifying.

Well, I think they're trying to just be legally effective.

However, church and state was originally designed not to prevent the church from controlling government, but the other way around. It may seem harmless with heritage designation, but that's exactly what this is... the state is using it's own discretion to impose limitations on the church subjectively.


___________________

And now Vineyard church has been hit with this. They were perhaps less clumsy about how this effects them.