Dad’s Place (has) filed a federal lawsuit against the city, accusing officials of violating the church’s constitutional rights. The lawsuit has not been withdrawn from the court system.
Good. I hope Dad’s place keeps going with the lawsuit, and wins.
The city said Avell’s church was not properly zoned for residential usage, and that serious fire code violations were found throughout the building during repeat inspections.
It would be an even bigger tragedy if the place burned down while packed with trapped people. Presumably part of the conditions are to fix this issue.
My family converted a residential structure to commercial. We had to add fire protection, with sprinklers and additional exit doors. Fire protection requirements are significantly more stringent in commercial structures than residential. This wasn’t due to fire code.
Zoning allows it to operate as a church, where a lot more than a dozen people will be present. Zoning considered it safe enough to offer such services to the public.
He temporarily changed his operating hours from Sunday mornings to 24/7 for the duration of an emergency. There is no significantly greater risk from fire to these occupants than to the church’s regular congregants.
No, it might have very well met residential zoning requirements, even though it was not actually zoned residential. If it did not meet requirements, the most likely reason would be a lack of shower/bathtub, or a lack of closets or windows in spaces designated as “bedrooms”.
If he were offering housing under normal conditions, yes, there would be a problem. But he’s not. He’s offering shelter and respite - church services - at a church on an emergency basis.
It’s likely zoned commercial. It looks like it operates out of a retail storefront. Whatever it is zoned, the fact is that the city has no problem with typical church services: many members of the public congregating within the building.
They only had a problem when a handful of people stayed the night on an emergency basis.
Anyway, I’m getting hit for this one, but my intention was to defend that the city wasn’t just being sick, anti homeless villains. There were warnings, etc. The building next door has people who stay overnight (it’s a halfway house), so this couple COULD have done some paperwork, petitions, or upgrades, but instead chose to hire extreme right wing lawyers to make a media circus
You’re right, you’re going to get hit for that one.
If the city were arguing that the building itself was not safe for occupancy, you’d have a point. If they were trying to shut down the entire facility, OK. But they weren’t. The problems didn’t come up until they opened their doors 24/7.
Thanks for digging into this a little further. It seems like small town news stories that get national attention don’t always paint a full picture, particularly when there’s an obvious moral high ground and an obvious victim or villain. I had several questions, because the story wasn’t adding up.
What sort of monster would object to sheltering homeless in a cold snap? The entire city government, including the fire department?
There’s an established shelter next door. Why did no one object to that? \
Since when did small towns in northwest Ohio start persecuting churches for no apparent reason? (for anyone out of the US, this population tends to be deep red GOP, very devout churchgoers, etc.)
This isn’t the first time there has been a cold spell. It happens at least once a year in January or February. Do the homeless in this tiny town just freeze to death every year?
There’s clearly a lot more to the story, but with national coverage like this I’d guess they were able to take in enough donations to cover basic repairs to the property.
The basics of zoning come down to county or city, but this building happened to be zoned commercial (it’s attached to a taco restaurant) but surrounded by various support services buildings. There’s a veterans place along the same alley road.
But zoning determines the safety expectations of a building, as well as several other things (noise allowances, vehicles, etc).
Yes there is technically church zoning for tax purposes. I guess I misspoke saying “it’s not even a church”. These two used to run a church service from their home, but then they bought that commercial space, as many churches do in rural places. My point was this isn’t what your brain imagines when you say church, it’s a warehouse space that was converted. So definitely not structured for residential safety, which is different than commercial
Funny that these serious code violations weren’t an issue until the city pulled this bone headed move. It’s like when police shoot an unarmed man and then bring up a possession of marijuana conviction from 20 years prior.
The point of things like the fire code is to ensure that if, for example, you’ve got 20 people sleeping in a building the building is set up to be able to get those people out easily if it catches on fire. So it’s not a problem until you’ve got 20 people sleeping in the building. If the building’s only safe for 4 people sleeping in it then there’s no fire code problem if 4 people are sleeping in it. It only becomes a problem when you cram 20 people in there.
This isn’t the point people were trying to make. It’s the slowly growing frustration that people feel as they hear time and time again how people in power only take notice of someone when they try to help others who need it.
Amongst other growing social issues, this one is especially obvious in most cases.
It’s the point I’m trying to make. The place wasn’t shut down arbitrarily for no reason, it was shut down (or rather prevented from becoming an impromptu homeless shelter) because it wasn’t safe.
If this had been allowed to carry on without fuss and then there was a fire that killed dozens of homeless people the headlines would have been blaring about how the city was responsible for those deaths. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
It also wasn’t safe for those homeless people to be sleeping outside in frigid temperatures. When weighing the options, would you rather have them sleep in a heated area that allegedly isn’t safe (though perfectly safe for congregants to congregate during normal hours) or sleep outside where they’ll most likely freeze to death? I don’t thinking people would have such an issue if there were a legitimate alternative available but there wasn’t.
There’s a big difference between sleeping in a place overnight and just standing around “congregating” there, from a fire safety standpoint.
This is not a one-off issue. The place has been repeatedly failing fire inspections. If the guy wants to use it as a homeless shelter then he needs to fix those issues.
Nobody is arguing that the building should remain unsafe. We’re pointing out that the alternative for those who stayed there would likely have been freezing to death sleeping outside. The place didn’t burn down obviously, so it was definitely the right call to have them sleep in the church during the cold snap.
They’ve done this repeatedly over time before the government response. They, over time, installed amenities. They could get clearance/zoning for overnight people, like the building right next door to them (a halfway house), but they are extremists who refused to try to work with the government to make it legit
The city said Avell’s church was not properly zoned for residential usage, and that serious fire code violations were found throughout the building during repeat inspections.
Good. I hope Dad’s place keeps going with the lawsuit, and wins.
It’s not quite so simple, IMO.
It would be an even bigger tragedy if the place burned down while packed with trapped people. Presumably part of the conditions are to fix this issue.
Fuck that noise.
My family converted a residential structure to commercial. We had to add fire protection, with sprinklers and additional exit doors. Fire protection requirements are significantly more stringent in commercial structures than residential. This wasn’t due to fire code.
Zoning allows it to operate as a church, where a lot more than a dozen people will be present. Zoning considered it safe enough to offer such services to the public.
He temporarily changed his operating hours from Sunday mornings to 24/7 for the duration of an emergency. There is no significantly greater risk from fire to these occupants than to the church’s regular congregants.
No, it might have very well met residential zoning requirements, even though it was not actually zoned residential. If it did not meet requirements, the most likely reason would be a lack of shower/bathtub, or a lack of closets or windows in spaces designated as “bedrooms”.
If he were offering housing under normal conditions, yes, there would be a problem. But he’s not. He’s offering shelter and respite - church services - at a church on an emergency basis.
Go try to find Dad’s Place on Google maps. You’ll see it’s not even a church.
Church doesn’t mean the building. It means how the organization is registered federally for tax purposes. It could be in a trailer.
When we’re talking about residential zoning, we’re talking about the building
It’s likely zoned commercial. It looks like it operates out of a retail storefront. Whatever it is zoned, the fact is that the city has no problem with typical church services: many members of the public congregating within the building.
They only had a problem when a handful of people stayed the night on an emergency basis.
It has alley access behind the storefront haha.
Anyway, I’m getting hit for this one, but my intention was to defend that the city wasn’t just being sick, anti homeless villains. There were warnings, etc. The building next door has people who stay overnight (it’s a halfway house), so this couple COULD have done some paperwork, petitions, or upgrades, but instead chose to hire extreme right wing lawyers to make a media circus
You’re right, you’re going to get hit for that one.
If the city were arguing that the building itself was not safe for occupancy, you’d have a point. If they were trying to shut down the entire facility, OK. But they weren’t. The problems didn’t come up until they opened their doors 24/7.
Thanks for digging into this a little further. It seems like small town news stories that get national attention don’t always paint a full picture, particularly when there’s an obvious moral high ground and an obvious victim or villain. I had several questions, because the story wasn’t adding up.
What sort of monster would object to sheltering homeless in a cold snap? The entire city government, including the fire department?
There’s an established shelter next door. Why did no one object to that? \
Since when did small towns in northwest Ohio start persecuting churches for no apparent reason? (for anyone out of the US, this population tends to be deep red GOP, very devout churchgoers, etc.)
This isn’t the first time there has been a cold spell. It happens at least once a year in January or February. Do the homeless in this tiny town just freeze to death every year?
There’s clearly a lot more to the story, but with national coverage like this I’d guess they were able to take in enough donations to cover basic repairs to the property.
So does this city have specific church zoning or something? It’s not clear what your point is or what specifically makes a building "a church. "
The basics of zoning come down to county or city, but this building happened to be zoned commercial (it’s attached to a taco restaurant) but surrounded by various support services buildings. There’s a veterans place along the same alley road.
But zoning determines the safety expectations of a building, as well as several other things (noise allowances, vehicles, etc).
Yes there is technically church zoning for tax purposes. I guess I misspoke saying “it’s not even a church”. These two used to run a church service from their home, but then they bought that commercial space, as many churches do in rural places. My point was this isn’t what your brain imagines when you say church, it’s a warehouse space that was converted. So definitely not structured for residential safety, which is different than commercial
If they’re that concerned about the safety of homeless people, maybe they could help the overcrowded shelter, or help with repairs to the church?
It’s pretty disingenuous to say “this is for their well-being and safety!” and then immediately throw them back out on the street.
100%
Because the homeless people were in there once. There will be a congregation every Sunday.
Risking a fire is bad, but it’s still probably better than the more imminent risk of exposure to the elements.
Funny that these serious code violations weren’t an issue until the city pulled this bone headed move. It’s like when police shoot an unarmed man and then bring up a possession of marijuana conviction from 20 years prior.
The point of things like the fire code is to ensure that if, for example, you’ve got 20 people sleeping in a building the building is set up to be able to get those people out easily if it catches on fire. So it’s not a problem until you’ve got 20 people sleeping in the building. If the building’s only safe for 4 people sleeping in it then there’s no fire code problem if 4 people are sleeping in it. It only becomes a problem when you cram 20 people in there.
This isn’t the point people were trying to make. It’s the slowly growing frustration that people feel as they hear time and time again how people in power only take notice of someone when they try to help others who need it.
Amongst other growing social issues, this one is especially obvious in most cases.
It’s the point I’m trying to make. The place wasn’t shut down arbitrarily for no reason, it was shut down (or rather prevented from becoming an impromptu homeless shelter) because it wasn’t safe.
If this had been allowed to carry on without fuss and then there was a fire that killed dozens of homeless people the headlines would have been blaring about how the city was responsible for those deaths. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
It also wasn’t safe for those homeless people to be sleeping outside in frigid temperatures. When weighing the options, would you rather have them sleep in a heated area that allegedly isn’t safe (though perfectly safe for congregants to congregate during normal hours) or sleep outside where they’ll most likely freeze to death? I don’t thinking people would have such an issue if there were a legitimate alternative available but there wasn’t.
There’s a big difference between sleeping in a place overnight and just standing around “congregating” there, from a fire safety standpoint.
This is not a one-off issue. The place has been repeatedly failing fire inspections. If the guy wants to use it as a homeless shelter then he needs to fix those issues.
Nobody is arguing that the building should remain unsafe. We’re pointing out that the alternative for those who stayed there would likely have been freezing to death sleeping outside. The place didn’t burn down obviously, so it was definitely the right call to have them sleep in the church during the cold snap.
It was a critical emergency.
I think that risk of the place burning down would have been worth taking if he were allowed.
They’ve done this repeatedly over time before the government response. They, over time, installed amenities. They could get clearance/zoning for overnight people, like the building right next door to them (a halfway house), but they are extremists who refused to try to work with the government to make it legit
They they they
Maybe WE should stop treating unhoused people like pests to be eradicated.
Maybe WE should push our gov’ts to tax the f’k out of corporate-owned housing and use the money to invest in affordable housing.
Maybe WE should remember when WE point fingers at others, there’s 3 fingers pointed back at us.
They got married and have sex together, too. What do you say to that?
**I’ve been speaking about the married couple who run the church
deleted by creator
From the article:
It was fire code violations.