Even though the Main St. Plaza lawsuit is over I'd thought I post this timeline of the case for anyone who might be interested. In the future I think I'll post more past cases between The Church and the ACLU. Let me know if you have anything you'd like to add.
The Main Street Plaza Time Line
December 1998: SLC Mayor Corradini and LDS Church President announce proposal for City to sell one block of downtown Main Street for creation of Main Street Plaza.
February 4, 1999: City report prepared for the first Planning Commission hearing stated: "A perpetual easement for 24-hour public access must be retained by the City from North Temple to South Temple within the existing street right-of-way. The easement should be designed and improved so as to maintain, encourage and invite public use."
March 4, 1999: Public easement requirement was very first condition to the Planning Commission’s recommendation that City Council approve sale of Main Street. Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve sale of Main Street to LDS Church on condition that “there be no restrictions on the use of this space that are more restrictive than is currently permitted at a public park.”
April 5, 1999: Closed meeting between LDS Church and SLC attorney where church states it must control activities. City begins to draft language acquiescing to church.
April 9, 1999: SLC attorneys give memo to City Council with draft reservation of the public easement for passage and access by pedestrians and street closure, stating to public that it was “consistent with the concept approved by the Planning Commission” that the space be regulated like a public park.
April 13, 1999: At City Council public hearing, no one from City attorneys draws attention to disappearance of the Planning Commission’s Condition 15 that “there be no restrictions on the use of this space that are more restrictive than is currently permitted at a public park.” During public comment a citizen-member of Planning Commission notes’the petition before you is not the same petition that was approved by the Planning commission.”
Council votes 5-2 to sell Main Street to LDS Church.
April 27, 1999: Mayor Corradini signs Special Warranty Deed, which provides for (1) City’s retention of easement and (2) extensive restrictions on conduct. Severablilty Clause states that if portion found to be unconstitutional, remaining portions are binding.
May 5, 1999: ACLU sends letter to City requesting “that the City address at once a specific aspect of the transaction that plainly violates the United States Constitution, so that litigation can be avoided.” Explains nature of traditional public forum and effect the restrictions will have on the community.
May 17, 1999: City letter to ACLU explaining that City has the authority to close or sell a public street.
May 26, 1999: ACLU letter to City explains that city cannot skirt constitution by “declarative fiat.” With five pages of references and case law, letter warns they must deal with “these difficult issues; they will not go away by themselves.” Stephen Clark, ACLU Legal Director, further writes “I am willing to sit down with you…at a mutually convenient time to discuss the issues as well as the City’s and the LDS Church’s interests and concerns. Our collective goal should be to see whether a set of reasonable, constitutionally permissible, neutral regulations can be identified…we sincerely hope we will not be forced to resort instead to litigation.”
November 16, 1999: ACLU files lawsuit against City for allowing LDS church to impose unconstitutional restrictions.
January 2000: LDS Church intervenes into lawsuit as additional defendant.
January 2, 2001: Federal court, District of Utah, rules in favor of City and Church.
August 13, 2001: ACLU appeals Judge Stewart’s decision to Tenth Circuit.
October 9, 2002: Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses lower court and rules that public easement is traditional public forum compelling
First Amendment rights, and restrictions are unconstitutional. Court states that LDS church has no right to be free from competition or criticism.
October 2002: Mayor Anderson vows that easement would not be transferred to Church.
October 18, 2002: Letter to City from ACLU suggests “time, place and manner” regulations which can constitutionally control activity “accommodating competing uses of the easement, controlling the level and times of noise” and reminding that “the City may take the interests of the surrounding property owners into account in enacting regulations.”
October 18, 2002: Anderson says easement not as important as guarantee of public access.
October 24, 2002: LDS Church seeks Tenth Circuit rehearing; denied on November 14, 2002.
November 1, 2002: Church urges Mayor to give up easement.
November 10, 2002: Deseret News poll shows 64% of LDS Utahns say City should give up easement, while 73% belonging to another or no religion say city should keep public easement. Main Street Plaza moves beyond literal intersection of LDS Church headquarters and downtown Main Street to symbol of cultural and religious divide in community.
November 16, 2002: Church disseminates expensive folder with full-page color inserts and letter from President Hinckley regarding “The New Church Plaza” to thousands of business and citizens.
December 6, 2002: Mayor Anderson announces proposal to define easement narrowly to sidewalk on one side away from LDS Temple activity, imposing “time, place, and manner restrictions.” Proposal touted as giving Church 90% of its desires on plaza.
December 16, 2002: Mayor Anderson, supported by the Alliance for Unity, proposes exchanging easement for land on the west side of City and fund for creating community center.
December 17, 2002: ACLU delivers letter to City Council and calls for revising definition of demonstrations to meet Constitutional standards. Also warns that the city cannot abandon its consistently stated public policy to reserve public passage and access on plaza: “the Tenth Circuit observed that ‘the City has contended throughout this litigation that the City would not have agreed to the sale ”but for” the easement.’”
Spring 2003: Numerous community council meetings held for City to pitch west side plan. Varying results.
April 9, 2003: Planning Commission votes no on extinguishment of easement.
June 3, 2003: ACLU sends letter to City Council on proposal to abandon public’s rights.
June 10, 2003: City Council votes 6-0, with one abstention, to vacate the easement.
June 23, 2003: US Supreme Court refuses to hear LDS church appeal.
July 28, 2003: City and Church hold press conference to sign deeds and exchange land.
August 7, 2003: ACLU brings legal action asking court to examine everything surrounding the transaction to determine whether city set aside its long-stated and valid public policy for pedestrian access and passage through the Main Street plaza in order to acquiesce to desires of LDS Church to continue to impose discriminatory restrictions on speech resulting in a violation of free expression and separation of church and state.
May 3, 2004: U.S. District Court for the District of Utah grants the City’s and the Church’s Motions to Dismiss and denies the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
May 21, 2004: ACLU of Utah files Notice of Appeal to the Tenth Circuit on behalf of plaintiffs.
September 14, 2004: ACLU files brief with the Tenth Circuit Court.
December 17, 2004: ACLU submits its appellants’ reply brief to the Tenth Circuit Court. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 4, 2005.
May 4, 2005: Oral arguments.
October 3, 2005: Tenth Circuit Court issues its decision, ruling that the Main Street Plaza is no longer a public forum and that the city’s decision to sell the easement did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment