More mosque in KY making headlines

 

http://www.westkentuckystar.com/News/Local---Regional/Western-Kentucky/Board-Denies-Request-for-Somali-Mosque-in-Mayfield

I would have thought Mayfield would have been more in line for an iglesia than a mosque.

What irony:

 

"An overflow crowd filled the council chambers of City Hall Tuesday for the public hearing. More than 100 people were turned away because there was not enough room."

I was onboard with the council's decision until this:

 

"This issue may not be over," Rodgers said. "They could choose to go to another building. They could appeal this to the Circuit Court if they so choose. This is probably not a dead issue."

 

To me, that makes it sound as if there was a reason why it was not approved that had nothing to do with building codes and parking spaces.

 

I would also like to hear more about this mistake.

 

No Somalis attended the hearing. Graves County Sheriff John Davis said one of the Somali petitioners showed up but was turned away by law enforcement by mistake.

I would also like to hear more about this mistake.

 

 

No Somalis attended the hearing. Graves County Sheriff John Davis said one of the Somali petitioners showed up but was turned away by law enforcement by mistake.

 

 

The sheriff sent deputies to try and bring the Somali back but they never found him. State Police working the door denied him entry after they were told that the buildings occupancy had reached maximum and no to allow anymore people inside. The State Police did not realize the Somali was part of the hearing.

Has Islamophobia always existed since 9/11, or is this whole thing just media driven now?

So, is all of Kentucky becoming a mosque-free zone?

If there were no Petitioners present (regardless of the "mistake"), then there was no testimony on behalf of the Petitioners, and therefore no evidence to support the Petition. Many people don't realize this, but at zoning hearings that IS your trial. If you do not present evidence, you do not get to go to the courts and re-try your case, and the court has no record to review on appeal. Your written Petition is not sufficient, because in and of itself it cannot be cross-examined.

If there were no Petitioners present (regardless of the "mistake"), then there was no testimony on behalf of the Petitioners, and therefore no evidence to support the Petition. Many people don't realize this, but at zoning hearings that IS your trial. If you do not present evidence, you do not get to go to the courts and re-try your case, and the court has no record to review on appeal. Your written Petition is not sufficient, because in and of itself it cannot be cross-examined.

 

So if I was opposed and organized my group of people to show up 4 hours early to ensure that we get all of the seats and would be over capacity would the Petitioner still be allowed in?

I was onboard with the council's decision until this:

 

 

 

To me, that makes it sound as if there was a reason why it was not approved that had nothing to do with building codes and parking spaces.

 

I would also like to hear more about this mistake.

 

If there were no Petitioners present (regardless of the "mistake"), then there was no testimony on behalf of the Petitioners, and therefore no evidence to support the Petition. Many people don't realize this, but at zoning hearings that IS your trial. If you do not present evidence, you do not get to go to the courts and re-try your case, and the court has no record to review on appeal. Your written Petition is not sufficient, because in and of itself it cannot be cross-examined.

 

You are correct Hearsay. The BZA is a quasi-judicial board and testimony is crucial in their rulings.

 

I am very familiar with KRS 100. In order for any variance to be granted, the following has to be true...

 

The board must find that by granting the variance it will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity, will not cause a hazard or a nuisance to the public, and will not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning regulations.

 

Now I am not sure what Mayfield's parking requirements are, but it did not appear to have near the ample parking needed at this location. I am not sure what grounds they can appeal on? To me if there is nowhere near enough parking it can be detrimental to public safety and would alter the character of the vicinity, and would cause a hazard or nuisance to the public. Had it been approved, that decision could have easily been appealed, imo.

I am not a lawyer, but they could probably appeal on the grounds they did not receive full due process since some people were turned away from the public hearing?

Sounds like Hearsay said it was a done deal after the hearing. Unless I misunderstood.

From seeing reports of the issue, this is my take:

 

The building in question has very little room for parking, so I can understand why it would be best to have the "mosque" somewhere else.

 

However, I don't think parking-related issues were the inspiration for so much opposition ... what will be the reason when the Somalis find a more suitable facility?

what will be the reason when the Somalis find a more suitable facility?

 

Is that a rhetorical question? We all know what the reason will be. Freedom of religion yes, just don't build your mosque in my backyard. Right or wrong, IMO that is what it boils down to.

So, is all of Kentucky becoming a mosque-free zone?

 

Nope. They're building one down the street from my parents' home in the East End of Louisville.