Church fights New Jersey town over plans to seize property and turn it into park
Christ Episcopal Church is fighting plans from Toms River, NJ officials to seize their church property, alongside three other town marinas, as part of the township's plans to revitalize the downtown community.
Bishop Sally French, in a letter to parishioners, told churchgoers that on April 30, about a day before a scheduled town meeting, officials were alerted by a concerned community member that the church's property had been "added to a proposal for an eminent domain ordinance." The church, which has been a part of the community for 160 years, says the action comes amid trying to build a homeless shelter on their property.
"As a Christian leader and a resident of New Jersey, I am troubled by the township's move to block the faithful ministry of Christ Church and their care for those in need, and I am saddened that the mayor and township council are prioritizing pickleball courts over responding to hunger and homelessness," Bishop Sally French said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. "I ask that Toms River lift the burden these proceedings have placed on our parish and diocese, and I pray that we can move forward in serving our neighbors."
Psaki Bombs: Msnbc's Newest Primetime Program Sheds 53% Of Viewers From Key Demo In Second Episode
Republican Mayor Rodrick told Fox News Digital he feels the plan is in the best interest of the constituents because children do not have a playground in the immediate area. The town ordinance allows officials to enter into negotiations to secure the areas or acquire them by eminent domain should the church not want to sell the property.
Read On The Fox News App
"We have about 20,000 residents, 5,000 households within a stone's throw of the Episcopal church," he said. "The property is very large, it's a 10-acre parcel and has a tremendous amount of parking and the parking, we would never be allowed to make that much parking on a property that size anymore. It would be very difficult... so it would be great for the kids in the local area and the families in that area to have a park that they can walk to with their kids and a playground. We're also interested in doing a skate park there."
Rodrick argued that the project, which he believes would benefit both residents and businesses, is part of a larger plan to "redevelop downtown" and make it more of a "destination" for residents. The agenda would "enhance business downtown" by bringing more customers to the area.
He also spoke to Fox News Digital about how he is proud of his budget as mayor, explaining they were "DOGE before DOGE was cool" as they cut the budget from $146 million to $135 million.
The Episcopalian church has a different take on the matter, with the bishop offering her full support to the community church.
"The people of Christ Episcopal Church have my support and gratitude for their Gospel ministry of feeding the hungry and providing shelter to unhoused people," she said. "Jesus tells us to care for the poor and vulnerable as we would care for him, and the people of Christ Church are putting that commandment into action."
Should the town acquire the property, Rodrick says the church would have time to purchase another property or may choose to consolidate churches according to the church leader's digression, pointing to there possibly being a silver lining to consolidation for the church due to the high value of the property compared to liabilities.
"Nationwide, the Episcopal church is in steep decline. I think they lost 40,000 members last year. A lot of these Protestant churches have seen big decreases in membership. They still have a lot of these legacy costs and pensions for their pastors that they need to make payments on and it costs a lot of money. So, if you have 75 people put $10 in, and you bring in $3,000 a month, do you know what it must cost to heat a 20,000-square-foot church? So, they could probably benefit from some consolidation and many of the smaller Protestant denominations are doing that."
The church is standing alongside "approximately 150 church members, community members, clergy" and others in their fight against the ordinance, according to the website.
"Christ Church Toms River is a vital resource in the community," Mother Lisa Hoffman, rector of Christ Church in Toms River, told Fox News Digital. "Our outreach includes nearly 20 12-step meetings per week. While the members of Christ Church are disappointed with this situation, we are determined to protect our Gospel ministry."
As for next steps, the council has already voted four to three and "anticipates" it will pass for a second time four to three, according to the mayor.Original article source: Church fights New Jersey town over plans to seize property and turn it into park
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
25 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
IRS says churches can now endorse political candidates. Miami faith leaders weigh in
The Internal Revenue Services is reversing a long-standing policy and will now allow religious institutions to endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status — a move that has divided faith leaders and advocacy groups. Earlier this month, the IRS sided with the National Religious Broadcasters, an evangelical media group, and two Texas churches in a court filing intended to settle a lawsuit that challenged a ban on most nonprofits from endorsing political candidates in elections. While most Americans, according to multiple public opinion polls, want to keep politics out of the pulpit, many conservative Christian groups, including the ones named in the lawsuit, have been pushing for more freedom for faith leaders to voice opinions — a view repeatedly advocated by President Donald Trump throughout his time in office. Many advocates and faith leaders in South Florida who spoke with the Miami Herald remain strongly opposed to the decision, fearing raising such issues threaten to create rifts within individual congregations. But while conservative Christian groups have been most outspoken in support of the move, it also could work both ways, allowing more freedom for progressive churches and leaders to advocate for issues that straddle the line of religion and politics. The lawsuit argues that the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 measure named after its author, former President Lyndon B. Johnson, restricts churches from exercising freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It also contends that the amendment is not enforced fairly — allowing some nonprofits, such as newspapers, to endorse candidates while others are banned. During President Donald Trump's first term in 2017, he vowed to 'get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.' While, the IRS didn't go that far, it did suggest that when a house of worship 'in good faith' speaks to its congregation through 'customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services concerning electoral politics,' it did not constitute participation or intervention in politics, as the Johnson Amendment prohibits. In a proposed consent judgment between the tax agency and religious groups, the IRS said those types of communications are akin to 'a family discussion,' and 'do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,' according to the proposed settlement filed in U.S. District Court in Texas. The IRS, in its court filing, also admitted that the Johnson amendment has not been consistently enforced since it was enacted, despite the fact that churches throughout the country violate it on a regular basis, according to a 2022 investigation from the Texas Tribune and ProPublica. The proposed settlement could have broad implications for political rhetoric in places of worship. WhiIe it applies specifically to plaintiffs in the lawsuit, advocacy groups and faith leaders who spoke with the Miami Herald are concerned it sets a precedent that will embolden other houses of worship to engage in partisan endorsements. 'It's a slippery slope and I feel like this is crossing the line. This is definitely crossing the line,'said Rabbi Gayle Pomerantz, senior rabbi at Temple Beth Sholom, a Reform synagogue in Miami Beach. 'Endorsing a candidate outright from the pulpit can lead to divisiveness and alienation within our congregations,' said Rev. Keny Felix, the senior pastor of Bethel Evangelical Baptist Church in Miami Gardens. 'Weaponizes religious freedom' Interfaith Alliance, a nonprofit that advocates for religious freedom and against Christian Nationalism, said the lawsuit 'weaponizes religious freedom.' 'They talk about free speech and religious freedom, when in reality what keeps our houses of worship free for religious communities is the separation of church and state,' said Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, vice president of programs and strategy at Interfaith Alliance. 'Imagine if every church in Florida was just an outpost of the GOP or the DNC, that would be a complete denial of religious freedom. It would destroy institutions that are sacred to so many Floridians.' Graves-Fitzsimmons, who is also an ordained Baptist deacon, pointed out that current law already allows houses of worship to engage with politics in many ways. For example, faith leaders can invite candidates to speak with their congregations as long as they provide equal opportunity to all parties. Many houses of worship host events encouraging members to vote — Souls to the Polls is an important event in many Black churches, for example — and some churches are polling places themselves. Nonprofits and churches are even allowed, under current law, to donate to campaigns on certain issues or ballot questions that align with their mission, as long as it is not a partisan race. The Catholic Church donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-abortion efforts to defeat a recent ballot question in Florida, for example. Local faith leaders weigh in 'I am absolutely taken back by that ruling,' said Rev. Laurie Hafner, lead pastor at Coral Gables Congregational United Church of Christ. Hafner's church has been on the front lines of advocating for issues some might see as political. In 2023, the church partnered with local bookstore, Books & Books, to organize a protest march against Florida's recent efforts to ban certain books in public schools. In recent years, she made national news for suing the state of Florida over its abortion ban on the grounds of religious rights. Hafner said after a close call with the IRS at her past church in Cleveland, she's been careful about how she speaks about political candidates from the pulpit. Still, she said, most of her congregants know where she stands politically, due to her strong stances on issues. 'I have never from the pulpit endorsed a particular candidate, although I think I make it very clear what side I'm on,' Hafner told the Miami Herald. 'And that's the side of the oppressed, the hungry, the homeless, the folks who are in prison, the immigrant … and certain candidates are a reflection of those values.' 'I don't know if this is going to change my position about endorsing the candidate from the pulpit, but it does give me a little more freedom, I think, to express myself if need be,' she said. Others expressed their disapproval over the IRS statements. 'I am strongly opposed to abolishing the Johnson Amendment,' said Rabbi Pomerantz, who was also the first female president of the Rabbinic Association of Greater Miami. 'I think it's helped to preserve the separation of church and state, and we at Temple Beth Sholom have always been very careful about promoting our Jewish values in non-partisan ways,' she said, referring to the Johnson Amendment. Pomerantz said her synagogue does not endorse candidates or advocate for issues in the name of Democrats or Republicans. She said, however, Temple Beth Sholom may take a position on an issue — like reproductive rights for example — informed by Jewish tradition and Jewish texts. 'We'll always have members of the congregation who don't agree with the position the synagogue has taken. But we feel it is our right and our duty to take positions on meaningful issues, in a non partisan way.' Concerns about endorsement Miami Gardens pastor Felix said he agrees with encouraging members to participate in the political system but draws the line at candidate endorsements. 'We have to be careful to not conflate God's kingdom with any one political party or candidate. If we do, our efforts will eventually prove to be misguided,' said Felix in an email to the Herald. Felix said he believes that pastors are responsible for 'providing moral leadership and clarity' on issues impacting the community — which may sometimes include advocating for justice and speaking 'on behalf of the marginalized and the underrepresented.' 'What unifies a diverse congregation is our common faith, not our political affiliation,' said Felix. Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said one of his main issues with the IRS ruling is that it potentially can 'corrupt' institutions that have always remained non-partisan. 'Part of what makes them spiritually pure is that they stay non-partisan,' Pesner said. 'They're about values, morals, deeply held beliefs … but when money starts flowing into religious institutions to win partisan battles and elect individual candidates, it corrupts those institutions.' Pesner's concern about the potential for the decision to interfere with campaign finance was also echoed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 'Weakening this law would undermine houses of worship and nonprofits by transforming them into political action committees, flooding our elections with even more dark money,' the group wrote in a statement. Faith leaders 'can move the needle' One advocacy group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, took steps last week to reverse the decision in the lawsuit by filing a motion to intervene. The nonprofit, which advocates for the separation of church and state and religious freedom, said the decision 'would grant favor and privilege to religious organizations and treat them differently than secular nonprofits.' 'The Trump administration's radical reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by favoring houses of worship over other nonprofits and inserting them into partisan politics,' said AU President and CEO Rachel Laser in a statement. Laser went on to say that the Johnson Amendment 'protects the integrity' of elections and nonprofit organizations, including houses of worship. Many who spoke with the Herald pointed to recent polling that shows that most Americans want to leave politics out of the pulpit. According to a 2022 poll from Pew Research Center, 77 percent of U.S. adults said churches and other congregations should not make political endorsements. Majorities in both the Democratic and Republican parities and every religious group that was polled also said churches should avoid political endorsements. On the other hand, the National Faith Advisory Board, a faith coalition founded and led by Paula White Cain, senior advisor to President Trump in the newly established White House Faith Office, celebrated the move by the IRS, calling it a 'tax clarification' that was 'born out of faith leaders advocating for their God-given rights.' 'It is a crucial reminder that faith leaders can move the needle when it comes to influencing the law of the land. Our collective voice matters,' the organization wrote in a weekly newsletter. The newsletter also went on to advise its readers to avoid 'paid ads, public rallies hosted by your church and using church resources to endorse a candidate to the public.' The faith advisory board was founded during Trump's first presidency by White and says it communicates with over 70,000 faith leaders across the country. This story was produced with financial support from Trish and Dan Bell and from donors comprising the South Florida Jewish and Muslim Communities, including Khalid and Diana Mirza, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners. The Miami Herald maintains full editorial control of this work.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Exclusive: Democrat on Bipartisan Push to Undo Part of 'Big Beautiful Bill'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Representative Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, has introduced legislation that would restore the 100 percent deduction for gambling losses that Senate Republicans reduced to 90 percent late in the passing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB). Titus spoke with Newsweek about her Fair Accounting for Income Realized from Betting Earnings Taxation (FAIR BET) Act, which she says so far has garnered "10 times the response" from constituents in her state and beyond compared to other aspects of the OBBB. Republican Representatives including Troy Nehls of Texas and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, also support Titus' bill. Why It Matters The roughly 900-page bill passed by Congress included a provision inserted by Senate Republicans without consent of the House that imposed a tax increase on Americans who gamble, reducing from 100 percent to 90 percent the amount of losses they can deduct from gambling winnings for their income taxes. The new provision, added by the Senate Finance Committee late in the legislative process ahead of the July 4 bill signing by President Donald Trump, means that gambling losses that have traditionally been fully deductible would no longer be so and gamblers could owe taxes even if they ended up with net losses in a year. For example, someone winning $100,000 and then losing that same amount may still owe $10,000 in taxes on that income—even though they broke even. What To Know Titus, in an exclusive interview, said the issue has drawn more widespread attention on the OBBB compared to other scrutinized portions of the legislation, such as Medicaid and food stamp cuts. "We've certainly heard from the industry, they've all kind of now gotten on board," Titus said. "But I can tell you that we put out a lot of messages about that big, bad BS bill and we talked about Medicaid, we talked about food stamps, we talked about renewable energy, but this issue has gotten 10 times the response than any of those have." The congresswoman continued: "I think it's people who are on the internet, I think it's young people who found an issue that they can kind of identify with. And I don't think it's just limited to the people directly impacted by gaming in Nevada. It's a national issue because now everybody can gamble on their phone, and so they're writing in, they're texting in, they're calling in to say, 'We should fix this.'" Titus said she "found it hard to believe" that some Republican senators were unaware of this provision in the bill's final version. She doesn't believe it was inserted from an ideological or partisan standpoint, however, but rather based on tax policy. "Let's just make it clear these are not just high rollers, these are not just the big professional poker players who itemize," she said. "Think how many people bet on a football game or bet on their phone, and how much they advertise some of the sports betting apps. These are just ordinary people who bet." Titus added: "It's not fair...I don't think people are going to say, 'I'm not going to gamble,' but what they may say is, 'Why would I itemize? Why would I turn this in if I'm going to have to pay tax on losses?'" Gambling losses up to the amount of one's winnings can be claimed but only if one itemizes their deductions. However, most don't do that because they opt for the standard deduction and better tax break. Titus also has a front-row seat to the benefits of the gaming industry, noting how cities like Las Vegas are important economically. People travel to gamble, spend on dining and shows, or just to watch poker championships—the "full ambiance" as she described. "They're going to go gamble on unregulated sources, whether it's offshore or the black market or the predictions market that's coming on so strong," Titus said. "Those entities don't pay taxes to the state, they don't invest in brick and mortar, they don't hire good union labor. In that sense it also hurts industry and a community's economy." Representative Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, tells Newsweek why she introduced the FAIR BET Act to restore the 100 percent deduction for gambling losses that Senate Republicans reduced to 90 percent in the One Big... Representative Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, tells Newsweek why she introduced the FAIR BET Act to restore the 100 percent deduction for gambling losses that Senate Republicans reduced to 90 percent in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. More Americans Overwhelmingly Support Gambling In its August 2024 report on Americans' attitudes towards gambling, the American Gaming Association (AGA) said than half of all American adults (55 percent) participated in some form of gambling in the previous 12 months. Roughly 122 million adult Americans, or 49 percent of the population, visited a casino for gambling or other entertainment purposes in that span—the highest level of casino visitation on record. Nearly nine-in-10 (88 percent) Americans find casino gambling to be acceptable for themselves or others, the research found, with 59 percent of Americans finding gambling personally acceptable—another an all-time high. The AGA represents major trade partners including Churchill Downs, DraftKings, MGM Resorts International and other big companies online and in casinos. A gaming industry source told Newsweek that there is support for Titus' legislation, adding that lawmakers or the Trump administration did not convey why this provision was included in the final bill. "This could potentially have a very direct impact on a professional gambler or a very high-volume recreational gambler who chooses to itemize committed to working with Representative Titus, as well as her co-sponsors in the House," the source said. Asked if Titus' bill is unsuccessful, the source said there's time to make legislative fixes between now and the spring of 2027 when people go to file their taxes for their prior calendar year. "We're motivated to get this done," they said. Financial Hit to Nevada Efforts in the Senate, led by Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, sought unanimous consent to restore the full deduction for gambling losses. That was unsuccessful. Cortez Masto told Newsweek that she will continue to explore all options available to restore the 100 percent dedication for gambling losses and protect Nevada's gaming and hospitality industries. "Republicans' hastily put-together bill is full of provisions that are completely counterproductive and harmful to Americans," the senator said. "The provision limiting the wagering loss deduction will have a negative impact on Nevada, and it's one of the many reasons I voted no." What People Are Saying Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, in a statement to Newsweek: "The Republican budget would kneecap sports and gambling by making Americans pay taxes on gambling losses. This is deeply unfair. I'm proud to introduce the FAIR BET Act with Rep. Titus to restore the 100 percent tax deduction for gaming losses." Professional poker player Daniel Negreanu told "I'm going to do everything I can to help make sure this isn't a reality or a problem. And when I say everything, I mean everything. This law would be, as I understand good at all. I'm going to reach out to people who are smarter than me on this. And then take measures to see if I can help in any way. And hopefully I can." Rufus Peabody, a professional sports bettor, told The Wall Street Journal: "More likely than not, I would owe more money in taxes than I actually made in 2026 if I continue betting. And so, as it stands, it becomes untenable to be a professional gambler." Phil Galfond, a professional poker player, wrote on social media: "This new amendment to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would end professional gambling in the US and hurt casual gamblers, too," "You could pay more in tax than you won." What Happens Next The tax deduction change is going into effect on January 1, 2026, unless modified sooner by Congress. It won't affect Americans' tax returns until after that date. Titus said the timeframe provides "a little bit of breathing room" for changes to take hold.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Consumed by Epstein, Trump has lost ground on the economy and immigration
President Donald Trump spent much of last week trying to fend off a revolt in his base over the Jeffrey Epstein case, but he has more than just problems within his own MAGA followers. He has lost ground with the broader public on issues that once were among his strongest attributes.
