On the surface, the leaders who make zoning enforcement decisions in Pottstown appear to be a bit misguided. In recent months, citations have been issued against churches for feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and providing other services to those in need. Taking a church to task for acts of compassion has raised hackles and caused consternation among both church members and officials.
But the situation is not as clearcut as it may at first seem, and borough officials’ motives should not be so hastily judged. There are two sides to this story.
To be sure, the ability of churches to fulfill the most basic Christian mission of lending a hand to those less fortunate is sacred and should not be hindered or face interference. However, in Pottstown, where families struggle under the largest property tax burden in Pennsylvania, property values and circumstances that affect those values must also be considered.
The same working poor families that may require the services of food pantries and the assistance offered by churches and nonprofits can also suffer the consequences of a town whose resources are stretched thin when it becomes a haven for those most in need.
In a recent news story, Mercury staff writer Evan Brandt chronicled the events which began six months ago when a borough zoning officer cited Christ Episcopal Church and Mission First for zoning violations saying activities conducted at the two churches — mental health counseling, providing toiletries and weekly meals for those in need — “violate the zoning code’s definition of ‘church’.”
Both churches filed zoning appeals to have the violations thrown out, providing a number of arguments, including the observation that both churches had been conducting these activities since before Pottstown’s zoning code was adopted and were therefore “pre-existing,” a legal term that carries some measure of protection.
In September, following a meeting with church officials, the borough withdrew its zoning violations notices. However, it appears the matter did not end there.
On Dec. 23, lawyers for Christ Episcopal Church objected to a Dec. 6 borough letter requesting that the church withdraw its zoning appeal and provide “notification” to the borough regarding any expansion or changes in the services it provides to the needy.
Those objections were followed a few days later by a press release from Rev. Daniel Gutiérrez, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of 136 churches in five counties, stating the church will take the borough of Pottstown to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to protect its ability to provide without interference. The objections were in part motivated by another zoning violation notice filed against St. Paul’s United Church of Christ on North Franklin Street in connection with its agreement to allow a warming center for the homeless to be opened in the church basement. The warming center is operated by Beacon of Hope, a nonprofit agency seeking to build a permanent year-round shelter at the corner of Glasgow and West High Street, which also was cited.
“Faith groups believe (the actions against the High Street churches and the warming center) is a concerted effort to push out people living on the margins and is a violation of their First Amendment rights,” the church statement read.
“Even more painful is their apparent desire to deny citizens the basics of our common humanity: food, shelter, clothes, and dignity,” Gutiérrez said. “… For us, it is not about optics or the next election. It is about not abandoning those who are cold, hungry or lost.”
When asked by The Mercury for comment, Borough Manager Justin Keller released a statement on behalf of Borough Council President Dan Weand, which iterated a longstanding position that Pottstown unfairly bears the brunt of social services for Montgomery County.
“Despite the borough comprising 3% of Montgomery County’s population the borough maintains 20% of the county’s housing voucher choice residents. Given the reluctance of other municipalities, Pottstown has become unequally burdened with those coming from other communities seeking these services — placing an undue strain on our taxpayers,” Weand’s statement said.
“It is also the borough’s responsibility to provide a voice for all 23,000 residents as well as those providing services to the needy,” he said in the statement.
Pottstown’s position that the social services burden in Pennsylvania’s second wealthiest county should not fall solely on its poorest municipalities is an unhappy distinction shared with Norristown. The same argument has been made regarding affordable housing.
In this dispute, there are no easy answers. Those in poverty need the help churches provide, but those teetering on the edge need champions to protect their property values which affect taxes and financial burdens. Thus lies the division between church and state, and the prayerful need to meet somewhere in the middle.
