I assumed this article was about zoning, because that is the most common legal tool used to block projects people in power don't like. The zoning code in Selah, WA requires 2x as many parking spaces for mosques as any other religious building. This is totally legal and many people approved it. 😵‍💫 - ThreadSky

citizen-cate.bsky.social • 57 days ago

I assumed this article was about zoning, because that is the most common legal tool used to block projects people in power don't like.

The zoning code in Selah, WA requires 2x as many parking spaces for mosques as any other religious building. This is totally legal and many people approved it. 😵‍💫

Comments

nanzhounoodles.bsky.social•57 days ago

I'm trying to think of what could account for the disparity. This is based on traffic studies of existing buildings, right?

tvanl.bsky.social•57 days ago

Costly minimum parking mandates are not based on any observable facts. They are fabricated from thin air. Donald Shoup wrote extensively about this:

https://parkingreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/APA_-Practice_Parking_Reform_February-2020.pdf

nanzhounoodles.bsky.social•57 days ago

I've read the book. There is generally *some* empirical data backing up traffic estimates in the ITE, even if bad or situationally inappropriate because it was ported over from what was considered a ~similar use case.

nanzhounoodles.bsky.social•57 days ago

Just that mosques tend to be built in more suburban locations because they tend to be newer structures?

rithykhut.bsky.social•57 days ago

If the mosque had a good land use atty, they would probably win challenging that provision.

citizen-cate.bsky.social•57 days ago

There was no pending mosque application. They just copied values out of the ITE 🙃

rithykhut.bsky.social•57 days ago

Oh really? Love how a jurisdictions will just copy when they are potentially liable for losing in Court and paying atty fees. But the again I'm not a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act expert.

citizen-cate.bsky.social•57 days ago

I wish these things were challenged more! But even going through a standard variance process is a time intensive ordeal that many property owners can't afford to deal with.

rithykhut.bsky.social•57 days ago

No variance would/should be required. The law is that all religions need to be treated the same. So if a ⛪ is 1 space to whatever, it would be the same for a 🕌. Also it can't be more spaces than any type of public space like a school/library. But then again a 🕌 would need to apply.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply