Two Houston African-American Churches File Lawsuit Over City's Plans to Bulldoze Buildings to Sell Land to Developers
I guess it takes Democrat Mayors to get away with demolishing Black churches.
Since the Fifth Ward got smart, and united and found lawyers willing to back them up,
they might have a chance to defend their property. The Fourth Ward tried suing to save
churches and brick streets, but can't get the same legal backing. I tried to contact
the Liberty Institute to unite all the churches together in a class action suit against the City.
If it reaches national publicity, like the HERO ordinance, maybe the City would consider backing off.
If the City already made promises to the developer interests, this is where the "conflicts of interest"
are political and not just the straightforward cases of financial exchanges that interfere with public office.
=========================
Previous cases of the City of Houston targeting historic Black church property
* lawsuit over tearing up historic brick streets instead of the less expensive
alternatives of going through the sidewalks (which would also allow for easier maintenance
instead of tearing up the historic streets each time repairs are needed)
* demolishing Mt. Carmel and then charging a demolition lien to the church,
threatening to take the property to prevent them from rebuilding
* only agreeing to preserve the remains of Bethel Baptist church and the nearby
cemetery if this land is signed over to the city, so the churches are forced to forfeit property
* desecrating and removing historic burials several times in the building, demolition and rebuilding on the historic sites of Allen Parkway Village and Jefferson Davis Hospital in the national historic registered district of Freedmen's Town
* demolition of APV and other historic property taken by eminent domain for uses other than public roads.
These were all contested, but because the City of Houston had more power than the residents without resources to sue and defend their rights, their Civil Rights have gone unprotected since the founding of Freedmen's Town in 1866. These battles have been going on continuously as long as the rights of citizens to equal protections of the law are not recognized or enforced, but depend on hiring lawyers and winning lawsuits.
As long as "equal rights" and protections depend on "winning lawsuits" that not all people have a guarantee in, that makes inalienable rights "alienable" and not protected Constitutionally as promised.
So this pattern of abuse by the City of Houston shows what happens when a "govt entity" acts as a private corporate interest with collective authority to legally require taxes, but has no obligation to respect Constitutional rights unless sued and ordered in Court.
Since there is no Constitutional requirement or check against the City of Houston,
the Mayor has repeatedly violated Constitutional principles and been sued over
* the red light camera contracts that were proven to violate due process and were ordered
removed, but still cost taxpayers over $4.8 million to the contracting company instead of
charging that cost to the City officials who signed the contract against the objections of the taxpayer
* the homeless ordinance that has been fining and restricting the free exercise of religious
individuals and groups barred from outreach to the homeless, in order for the larger nonprofits
to monopolize grants and programs for the homeless. This has been contested but the ordinance stands.
* now the HERO ordinance also contested, where the lawsuit forced the Mayor to recognize
the petition to put the issue to a ballot vote. Either way, since there are beliefs on both sides,
similar to gay marriage, both sides should be equally protected instead of passing one sided policies
that discriminate against the creed of others. Similarly, the same Mayor changed the city employee
benefits to recognize same sex couples as married, instead of making the policy neutral without
references either for or against gay marriage and same sex couples, so either way it is still
enforcing a bias involving conflicts between beliefs.
I guess it takes Democrat Mayors to get away with demolishing Black churches.
Since the Fifth Ward got smart, and united and found lawyers willing to back them up,
they might have a chance to defend their property. The Fourth Ward tried suing to save
churches and brick streets, but can't get the same legal backing. I tried to contact
the Liberty Institute to unite all the churches together in a class action suit against the City.
If it reaches national publicity, like the HERO ordinance, maybe the City would consider backing off.
If the City already made promises to the developer interests, this is where the "conflicts of interest"
are political and not just the straightforward cases of financial exchanges that interfere with public office.
=========================
Previous cases of the City of Houston targeting historic Black church property
* lawsuit over tearing up historic brick streets instead of the less expensive
alternatives of going through the sidewalks (which would also allow for easier maintenance
instead of tearing up the historic streets each time repairs are needed)
* demolishing Mt. Carmel and then charging a demolition lien to the church,
threatening to take the property to prevent them from rebuilding
* only agreeing to preserve the remains of Bethel Baptist church and the nearby
cemetery if this land is signed over to the city, so the churches are forced to forfeit property
* desecrating and removing historic burials several times in the building, demolition and rebuilding on the historic sites of Allen Parkway Village and Jefferson Davis Hospital in the national historic registered district of Freedmen's Town
* demolition of APV and other historic property taken by eminent domain for uses other than public roads.
These were all contested, but because the City of Houston had more power than the residents without resources to sue and defend their rights, their Civil Rights have gone unprotected since the founding of Freedmen's Town in 1866. These battles have been going on continuously as long as the rights of citizens to equal protections of the law are not recognized or enforced, but depend on hiring lawyers and winning lawsuits.
As long as "equal rights" and protections depend on "winning lawsuits" that not all people have a guarantee in, that makes inalienable rights "alienable" and not protected Constitutionally as promised.
So this pattern of abuse by the City of Houston shows what happens when a "govt entity" acts as a private corporate interest with collective authority to legally require taxes, but has no obligation to respect Constitutional rights unless sued and ordered in Court.
Since there is no Constitutional requirement or check against the City of Houston,
the Mayor has repeatedly violated Constitutional principles and been sued over
* the red light camera contracts that were proven to violate due process and were ordered
removed, but still cost taxpayers over $4.8 million to the contracting company instead of
charging that cost to the City officials who signed the contract against the objections of the taxpayer
* the homeless ordinance that has been fining and restricting the free exercise of religious
individuals and groups barred from outreach to the homeless, in order for the larger nonprofits
to monopolize grants and programs for the homeless. This has been contested but the ordinance stands.
* now the HERO ordinance also contested, where the lawsuit forced the Mayor to recognize
the petition to put the issue to a ballot vote. Either way, since there are beliefs on both sides,
similar to gay marriage, both sides should be equally protected instead of passing one sided policies
that discriminate against the creed of others. Similarly, the same Mayor changed the city employee
benefits to recognize same sex couples as married, instead of making the policy neutral without
references either for or against gay marriage and same sex couples, so either way it is still
enforcing a bias involving conflicts between beliefs.
