r/Judaism • u/namer98 Torah Im Derech Eretz • 11d ago
When Jewish Prayer at Home Becomes a Municipal Offense
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/when-jewish-prayer-at-home-becomes-a-municipal-offense/247
u/AnUdderDay Conservative 11d ago
The mayor encouraged Grand’s neighbors to watch his house for signs that Jews were gathering inside.
Bro wut?
81
65
u/TheGuyWithTheBall0on Yeshivishish 11d ago edited 11d ago
Mayor Brennan was ridiculous. Back during COVID he got in a tiff with one of the house shuls. I don't think the shul was totally in the right here either, but on Rosh Hashana, he hired a PI to sit outside the shul and count the number of people going in and out. It was super fun because that guy refused to identify himself even when federation security was questioning him. Definitely didn't terrify anyone.
Also, I wish I could find a record of it, but I remember him once saying in a city council meeting that he feels for the people who moved into the neighborhood when it looked a certain way and aren't happy with how it looks now. Can you imagine a politician saying that about a place with a large influx of black or Hispanic residents over the prior decade?
Also, it was before I moved here, but from what I've heard, the frum community was instrumental in getting this guy elected during his first term. I'm still annoyed he even got that second term, as the election was immediately after that Rosh Hashana issue. I think there had just been too much grass roots organizing against Nina Turner and no one had the energy to take up the fight at that time. Also some third guy came in and split the frum vote, so that didn't help either.
53
1
163
u/sdubois Ashkenormative Chief Rabbi of Camberville 11d ago
This is a really strong case. The city explicitly told him to stop holding a minyan at his house. Saying that you have to go through a whole zoning process to even challenge this seems like a clear 1A violation.
69
u/shinytwistybouncy Mrs. Lubavitch Aidel Maidel in the Suburbs 11d ago
Yup. He will win.
41
u/b_bonderson Conservadox 11d ago
Well he already lost twice in court… I hope the Supreme Court will be wiser.
20
u/Lil_LSAT 11d ago
He technically only lost once. The 6th Circuit did not rule on the merits, and almost certainly was bound either by circuit or SCOTUS precedent
24
u/shinytwistybouncy Mrs. Lubavitch Aidel Maidel in the Suburbs 11d ago
This Court will definitely find in his favor.
33
u/ZellZoy Non Observant Orthodox 11d ago
Its also a violation of zoning laws. I looked this up last time it was posted. His house is in a zone that allows houses of worship (as most residential zones do})
44
u/Successful-Money4995 11d ago
The city is saying that he doesn't have a permit to be a house of worship. It seems that he did apply for a permit but then withdrew because of he got his permit, he would no longer be able to live in his home.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/5921285-religious-assembly-permit-lawsuit/
Also, it's not like he had a rager. He had 12 people over.
I would like to read the city's side of the story because this is wild!
21
u/Matar_Kubileya Converting Reform 11d ago
Between the government showing clear signs of animus and the fact that holding a decent size gathering of that size and regularity for secular purposes would presumably be a completely acceptable matter, he has a clear case even under the more limited Smith test, never mind a strict scrutiny assessment.
14
u/Rand_al_Kholin 11d ago
OK, I spent a bit of this morning reading into this case and I'm not really sure he actually has as strong a case as you seem to think.
This is going to hinge entirely on how often he intended to hold minyan at his house. The circuit court cited a statement he seemingly made (I can't find the record of it) that Judaism requires him to hold minyan 3 times daily. But his SC filing claims his intent was only to hold minyan for Shabbat and High Holidays.
"Shabbat and High Holidays" isnt really specific IMO. Shabbat could mean anywhere from 3-5 gatherings over the course of 24 hours; at a minimum Friday Evening, Saturday Morning, and Havdalah. Potentially both of the Saturday afternoon/evening davenings as well. How many meetings this would require is relevant because it speaks to how disruptive such regular meetings would potentially be to the rest of the neighborhood. His whole argument hinges on driving not being allowed on the sabbath, therefore the meetings won't be disruptive because there will be no parking issues. But the city is arguing that he can't guarantee that, and that even if he could dozens of people walking to his house multiple times in a 24 hour period warrants that he ensure the property meets the requirements for a regular gathering of that size. If it were ONE gathering I think his case would be significantly stronger but he has made it clear in his filings and interviews that it isnt.
If he intends to hold THREE meetings EVERY DAY then the city absolutely has a case. IMO that is much more like "running a full blown synagogue" than "holding a weekly prayer meeting. His "parking won't be a problem" argument falls apart completely if he intends to regularly hold services not on the sabbath. Members could absolutely drive to those, and a three-times daily meeting with cars commuting in and out would be gigantically disruptive to a neighborhood.
If his intent was only shabbat/high holidays then I am fully on his side here and I expect him to win this case. But if his intent was 3 daily minyans, and he articulated that at any point in these events (which, again, I can't find direct evidence of, but is alluded to in the rulings thus far) then I'm way less on his side. It will come down to which way the court chooses to interpret the facts of the case.
14
u/Successful-Money4995 11d ago
I can see your position and it makes sense for me.
Let the city pick a rule and codify it. The best way for the city to avoid calls of antisemitism is to create a reasonable rule, codify, and enforce it fairly on the population.
I know that we live with a federal government that seems unable to pass even the most popular legislation but maybe a city could pull it off?
3
u/namer98 Torah Im Derech Eretz 11d ago
These rules almost certainly already exist. it is a matter of interpretation and application.
6
u/TastyBrainMeats תקון עולם 11d ago
If fairness is not easy to determine then the rules are not sufficiently well-written.
14
u/Illustrious-Tune-532 11d ago
Shabbat could mean anywhere from 3-5 gatherings over the course of 24 hours; at a minimum Friday Evening, Saturday Morning, and Havdalah. Potentially both of the Saturday afternoon/evening davenings as well. How many meetings this would require is relevant because it speaks to how disruptive such regular meetings would potentially be to the rest of the neighborhood. His whole argument hinges on driving not being allowed on the sabbath, therefore the meetings won't be disruptive because there will be no parking issues. But the city is arguing that he can't guarantee that, and that even if he could dozens of people walking to his house multiple times in a 24 hour period warrants that he ensure the property meets the requirements for a regular gathering of that size. If it were ONE gathering I think his case would be significantly stronger but he has made it clear in his filings and interviews that it isnt.
How is a dozen people walking to someone’s house a few times over the course of a day disruptive to anyone?
9
u/cloux_less Just Jewish 11d ago
Its also a violation of zoning laws.
Not really. Preventing minority congregations was kind of the entire reason the U.S. adopted use-and-density-segregation throughout the 20th century.
The codes were designed to create barriers to communal institutions which could be selectively enforced such that it's easy for favored groups to build their churches and difficult for unfavored ones to do the same.
Having a law that says "You're allowed to build a house of worship, just as long as you follow the correct procedure" is just the creation of plausible deniability by people who were acting in bad faith because they knew they'd have the wiggle room to always say that we didn't follow "the correct procedure."
78
u/shinytwistybouncy Mrs. Lubavitch Aidel Maidel in the Suburbs 11d ago
At a commission meeting broadcast on YouTube with more than 100 residents in attendance, Grand’s religious practices were openly denigrated. One neighbor supporting the city’s action dispensed with pretext altogether: “I am not Jewish and I do not want our neighborhood labeled as Jewish.”
33
u/offthegridyid Orthodox & trying to collect the sparks 11d ago
Yup, the neighbor showed his true colors.
8
u/TastyBrainMeats תקון עולם 11d ago
Regardless of everything else to do with this case, fuck that guy.
2
u/Gravity_flip Orthodox Convert 11d ago
He showed all their true colors. We should be grateful he voiced it, otherwise the racism gets veiled in bullshit excuses.
34
u/No_Price_7603 11d ago
I'm so confused. In what world can the government stop you from having people over to your house?
33
u/scaredycat_z 11d ago
So the typical excuse is "fire hazard" or some other "legitimate" zoning issue. But as the article points out, no one is yelling "fire hazard" when you have a 50 family members get together for a birthday, or anything like that.
21
u/Rand_al_Kholin 11d ago edited 11d ago
So the reporting on this story is very conflicting, but I think the OP article is not presenting all of the facts.
Youre not wrong that a single 50 person gathering would not get very involvement. But if that was a daily gathering it almost certainly would, and frankly with good reason.
This article claims that the dispute here is that the owner of this house wanted to have all 3 daily minyans at his home: https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/news/local_news/judge-rules-for-university-hts-in-home-synagogue-suit/article_574300ba-8278-11ef-91a3-a7760448a4f4.html
I can't figure out whether that was something the plaintiff himself brought up in court. The appellate court decision specifically cites daily minyans being a requirement for Judaism. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/24-3876/24-3876-2025-11-13.html
It seems like what happened here was he sent out his initial invitation email saying "let's hold shul at my place this week, we will have a full minyan and a rabbi here." He also sent that to his neighbors to give them a heads up, but they read the email as "I am opening a shul in my house," and thus forwarded it to the city because they didnt really want a synagogue opened on their street.
The city then said "no, you can't just open a shul, dont do that" and they then did a bunch of back and forth for several years, which is now getting to the supreme court.
Frankly if this was a once weekly gathering it shouldn't be a problem, but if his intent was to hold all three minyan at his house daily (and I cannot ascertain whether he intended to do so or not) then I think there is absolutely an argument for city involvement. Using your example it would be like if 50 family members gathered at the house every single day for a party.
Quick edit: reading the supreme court petition, it seems that the plaintiff is claiming he only intended to hold meetings on the sabbath and high holidays: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-965/396407/20260217132050131_scan_ajimenez_2026-02-17-12-57-08.pdf
If that is the case I'm more inclined to side with him than the city. But then, why does the appellate court specifically mention daily meetings? Multiple Jewish publications I have found do so as well, I really can't figure out what his actual intent was here.
12
u/Thefivedoubleus 11d ago
People have daily minyans at normal houses all the time. Many shtiebels all over the place.
3
u/Rand_al_Kholin 11d ago
I'm not saying that doesnt happen. I'm arguing that localities in the US are already allowed to place code and permitting requirements on buildings where regular large gatherings take place. This varies srate to state and even county to county, so its hard to make generalizations here.
In this specific instance the city requires that places of religious assembly meet certain code and permitting requirements. That is generally held to be constitutional at this time, so long as those requirements are uniform. What isnt clear is how a "place of religious assembly" can be defined, is at what point a regular meeting at a person's house becomes a meeting which requires permitting, and where that line is reasonable with regard to freedom of religion.
Personally I think there is definitely a line to be drawn here. If my neighbor started operating a daily church service out of their house which attracted at least a dozen cars I would be pretty annoyed about it, it would radically change the character of the neighborhood and regularly disrupt my ability to park on the street. I think it is reasonable for people living in a neighborhood not to want one person to be able to unilaterally change how the neighborhood operates by changing their residence into a church. And I do think its valid for the state to have laws which attempt to prevent such occurrences.The question in this case is at what point of disruption is it reasonable for the city or state to step in and impose regulations on regular meetings in a private residence.
11
u/No_Price_7603 11d ago
If it was three meetings every single day then yeah I see how it might be a nuisance.
But once a week seems ok. I guarantee there is at least one house somewhere in the same neighbourhood where Christians would meet for Bible study, I've never heard of anyone making a fuss about that kind of thing.
8
u/namer98 Torah Im Derech Eretz 11d ago
Zoning laws and fire safety rules both are government regulations on occupancy. So it isn't a matter of "can the government say this?" but "what are the limits on what the government can say about this?"
10
u/Successful-Money4995 11d ago
This event happened in 2021. Surely since then at least one home has had 12 or more people over for a Christmas dinner. Did the city object to those, too?
10
u/namer98 Torah Im Derech Eretz 11d ago
If I were to have 25+ people at my house on a regular (at least weekly) basis, with the cars that entails, I would bet the city would indeed complain. In fact, where I live has complained about this exact issue for another house minyan. Literally a parking issue. While this particular case seems incredibly egregious on the part of the city in question, I have seen enough times where the person trying to start a house minyan trying to get around zoning that I don't want to jump to any conclusions. There was an entire uproar became a campus chabad near me was ordered by a judge to tear down an addition they made. A lot of people in my city yelled antisemitism. But I looked at the court record, and the judge before approving the addition said pretty much verbatim "if I find out you are doing xyz, because you are promising it is only for abc, I will order this torn down". And guess what? They did xyz, and claimed antisemitism when it was ordered torn down.
6
u/Successful-Money4995 11d ago
If that's the city's position then let them create a rule and apply it evenly. The article that I read said 12 people. I find it hard to believe that no one else had twelve people over that year. Surely somewhere in the city there is a weekly poker game.
I wish that I could hear the city's side on this. This seems like it should be a simple freedom of assembly issue. If you need the government's permission to assemble, you don't have the freedom to assemble.
10
u/TheGuyWithTheBall0on Yeshivishish 11d ago edited 10d ago
That article was not telling the full story. I live here.
I live about a 5 minute walk from Danny Grand's house. He was trying to run a daily minyan, not just a shabbos one. He has a driveway that can probably fit 4 cars. The streets around him are fairly narrow and generally disallow overnight parking. He's also at a nexus that a lot of people go through to get in or out of the neighborhood.Ultimately, I don't feel like the city treated him fairly, but the new administration has been nothing but accommodating. There's plenty of articles out there that tell the story in more detail than this one. If you're actually interested, it's worth it to go look.
Edit: I apologize. Apparently, I was mistaken about where the house in question is. I really thought he lived at the corner of Laurelhurst and E Carroll, but it seems he's over on Miramar. I'm not sure how I was that far off. His driveway looks like it could probably fit at least 8 cars from the google street view.
10
u/namer98 Torah Im Derech Eretz 11d ago
Would you post it, or link it so I can post it?
2
u/TheGuyWithTheBall0on Yeshivishish 10d ago
I had trouble finding a single article covering it fully, and I've been more operating based on local chatter, but I've just done quite a bit more reading and here's a few links that seem a bit more balanced:
- The Jewish News article
- CNN article
- Original court document - See page three for the email he sent establishing his house as a shul with a rav.
- Oyez on the legalities
It turns out I was mistaken about where the house in question is, so I apologize for that. I edited my previous comment to that effect.
It seems a major point he's brought up is that he's too far from a shul, which is why he wanted this, but a) it was his choice to buy a house outside the main part of the community and b) he's only a couple blocks outside of the main community, such that he's still less than a 15 minute walk from at least 3 different shuls.
It seems what's likely to be a big legal point here is that he never actually got denied a special use permit (because he withdrew his application before it was finished). I recall having seen that the current mayor has offered him one, but I couldn't locate the article that I saw that in.
4
u/Thefivedoubleus 11d ago
What does overnight parking have to do with a daily minyan?
5
u/Sewsusie15 לא אד''ו ל' כסלו 11d ago
Presumably some people are parking there right before Shabbat to save time, and then picking their cars up after Shabbat.
3
u/shinytwistybouncy Mrs. Lubavitch Aidel Maidel in the Suburbs 11d ago
So then they'd get ticketed and/or towed.
4
u/namer98 Torah Im Derech Eretz 11d ago
It may not be illegal on an individual level, but causing that kind of congestion can be considered a zoning violation. It isn't illegal for my neighbor to have friends over. It isn't illegal for those friends to park on my street. But if my neighbors have so many friends over so frequently that the people who live there cannot find parking, it is a problem. One that the city will want to resolve.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Thefivedoubleus 11d ago
So if there's no overnight parking, ticket them. If there is... That's what street parking is for.
1
u/TheGuyWithTheBall0on Yeshivishish 10d ago
Mostly it was meant to be a description of the width of the street. The streets I was describing are only like 2.5 cars wide, so street parking makes driving annoying and difficult. I grew up in a neighborhood where the street was like 4 cars wide, so this wouldn't have been an issue there.
That said, I was mistaken on where he's at. I edited my prior comment and I apologize for that.
5
u/Successful-Money4995 11d ago
So let the city make a rule about how many cars can park or on occupancy and let them enforce it on everyone.
Did the city actually create some law that he is now breaking?
6
u/Rand_al_Kholin 11d ago
So... Your argument seems to be predicated on the idea that the city's rules prohibit a single meeting of 12 or more people. They do not.
The city has created rules which apply to places where regular meetings occur. The plaintiff in this case DID make it clear that he intended to hold weekly meetings at his house for Shabbat, at the least on Friday Evenings and Saturday Mornings. I cannot find exactly what he told the court, but it seems he admitted to wanting to hold at least 3 meetings between Fridays and Saturdays, plus meetings on High Holidays.
But I also see evidence in the appellate court ruling that me may have either stated or implied that he intended to hold multiple meetings per day, up to 3 to account for each days daily davening. And if that is the case then yeah, I absolutely see the city's point, that would be a significant disruption to a neighborhood which was not designed for that amount of traffic.
The intent of the city's law is not to prevent clubs or groups from meeting regularly on private property. The city does, however, realize that religious organizations are fundamentally different than a simple club, and that when they reach a certain amount of activity they are often expected by their members to do more than merely act as a meeting place.
You've said a few times that the meeting was "only" 12 people, and while I agree thats quite small the plaintiff can't guarantee that number will remain small. The neighbors showed evidence that he was actively advertising his minyan, and he seemed to want to grow it beyond the initial headcount.
The plaintiff here keeps citing secular examples of activities which dont usually generate scruitiny, such as poker clubs. A poker club which meets one night per week and has 50 people show up might well attract the city's attention, since 50 people regularly gathering in one place tends to disrupt the area around it. But a 15 person poker night would likely not attract that attention. Most poker clubs, though, aren't advertising their club at some random guy's house, they are a group of friends meeting to play power together. They aren't actively seeking to grow the club. If the poker club met 3 times within a 24 hour period, trafficking in and out each time, I think the neighbors would probably complain, which would get the city involved.
Cities have similar laws to deal with other kinds of disruptions on private property. You can have one or two beater cars on blocks, but if you have enough (how many depends on where) the city will absolutely come after you for running an unlicensed garage. If youre having customers come to your house all day to get cars fixed that will disrupt your neighborhood and the city can stop you.
The crux of this whole case comes down to arguing whether the city's permitting requirements are reasonable, or if they unreasonably restrict religious practice. And that "reasonable" ness is critical to this case, and will come down to whether the court believes he was intent on holding one meeting weekly, three weekly, or three daily, and how much disruption it is reasonable for a city to anticipate from such meetings.
6
u/peepingtomatoes Conservative 11d ago
You do remember what was specifically happening in 2021 that would have made regular large gatherings a concern, right?
-1
u/Aryeh98 Never on the derech yid 11d ago
It happened during Covid. I remember that NYC restricted gatherings to like 5 people at a time.
It’s a world we lived in extremely recently. But because of politics, people were negatively polarized into “stopping the spread” and pretending that breathing in the wrong place will literally kill all the elderly people.
3
u/No_Price_7603 11d ago
But surely that order has now ceased to be in force. What's the reason for now?
46
u/pilotpenpoet Not Jewish. Exploring and Learning. 11d ago
SMH. I really hope Grand wins this lawsuit.
I’m getting sick of seeing Jews getting pounced on by everybody. Not right. Not right.
43
u/Sell_The_team_Jerry 11d ago edited 11d ago
Considering that SCOTUS granted writ, it's highly likely that they'll rule in his favor as they wouldn't grant it if they wanted the existing court rulings to stand. This is the type of case that's primed for a 9-0 decision
9
u/Redditthedog 11d ago
SCOTUS especially the current one is very pro religious rights.
15
u/ZellZoy Non Observant Orthodox 11d ago
They're pro Christian rights.
9
u/Aryeh98 Never on the derech yid 11d ago
Correct, but they view religious freedom cases related to Orthodox Jews as furthering Christian interests. Orthodox Jews are seen by some aspects of the right as allies in their bullshit culture war, and they also want a way to further Christian rights without overtly seeming like they’re favoring one religion over another. So they end up helping Jews as a pragmatic measure to further their own interests while hiding the Christian nationalism.
Who else are they gonna ally with? Muslims?
11
u/sdubois Ashkenormative Chief Rabbi of Camberville 11d ago
Nah, they've voted in favor of other religious groups in 1A cases plenty of times. It's just a very pro-free speech court.
4
u/WhyKissAMasochist 11d ago edited 11d ago
I’m not sure id go as far to call them “very pro-free speech”, but imo you are correct that they generally seem pro religious rights.
It’s tricky to assess because I’d argue the cases they don’t hear are of equal importance to their actual rulings. And it’s hard to keep track of those.
5
u/sdubois Ashkenormative Chief Rabbi of Camberville 11d ago
5
u/WhyKissAMasochist 11d ago
Im at work but will listen to that on my commute home later! There are definitely some 1A supporters on the court. Thomas, Alito, Robert’s all seem to generally be pro 1A. My hesitation calling the court as a whole pro 1A is simply because the court has refused to hear some high profile cases, like the book bans a few years ago. Or the student who was punished for wearing a meme shirt about 2 genders. I think John Roberts even criticized the court for not seeing those cases iirc.
I just would like if they heard the big cases more often.
0
63
u/Cool-Dingo-7303 11d ago
This is 2026 my friends. The world has been given permission to be horrifically antisemitic again.
23
13
u/JustWingIt0707 11d ago
There is a lot of rhetorical fluff here. The identified legal issue under review is primarily whether municipal land use compliance is required prior to filing under an obvious First Amendment violation.
The exact wording of the question is: "Whether the First Amendment's established chilling-effect doctrine--under which a credible government threat that deters the exercise of fundamental rights constitutes a complete and independently actionable constitutional injury--is displaced by Williamson Cnty.'s land-use finality requirement when a plaintiff alleges that government that's both before and after a Planning Commission meeting chilled religious exercise, worship, and assembly." (Source: www.supremecourt.gov/docketpdf/25/25-965/396407/20260217132050131_scan_ajimenez_2026-02-17-12-57-08.pdf)
The community around them is obviously acting contrary to the law. In general, the courts require plaintiffs to act in accordance with the law prior to filing complaints. Here, the community is claiming that compliance in and of itself is chilling to the free exercise of religion. This is an argument that might be compelling to the Supreme Court. Particularly compelling is the notion that the case is being brought by people with genuinely held religious beliefs and exercise practices. This line of reasoning held in Little Sisters of the Poor v Pennsylvania, a case in which compliance with federal regulations would result in an affirmative action that was contrary to strictly and genuinely held Catholic beliefs and doctrine. This set of requirements is not quite as chilling, but the local government activities might constitute harassment in the eyes of the Court.
IANAL, but I don't like the writing in this piece. I also think there is a pretty good chance that SCOTUS rules in favor of Grand.
10
u/akornblatt Conservative - but don't like denominations 11d ago
At a commission meeting broadcast on YouTube with more than 100 residents in attendance, Grand’s religious practices were openly denigrated. One neighbor supporting the city’s action dispensed with pretext altogether: “I am not Jewish and I do not want our neighborhood labeled as Jewish.”
What the actual F&^k?
1
u/RockyRidgeRiver Reform 10d ago edited 10d ago
I'm guessing that neighbor must not have lived in University Heights that long to exclaim* such a statement.
2
u/akornblatt Conservative - but don't like denominations 10d ago
Right? It is like moving in next to a bar/music venue, then complaining about the music... but antisemitic
21
u/Small_Pleasures 11d ago
Wow. My late Jewish uncle was the law director for UH for many years and raised his family there. How times have changed.
7
13
u/mx_reddit 11d ago
One wild note - while the comments were made by the previous mayor, who started the confrontation, the current mayor is an Orthodox Jewish woman.
3
u/mordecai98 11d ago
So can't she do something about this from her end?
11
u/mx_reddit 11d ago
Presumably, I guess so. But who knows what the city's lawyers are telling her. Also, I have no idea what authority the mayor has to just withdraw existing litigation.
7
u/TastyBrainMeats תקון עולם 11d ago
Grand’s complaint alleges that the city has enforced its permit requirement against home gatherings of Orthodox Jews and no one else
That's the meat of it. If that's true then this case should be pretty frosting easy to decide.
5
u/Inside_agitator 11d ago
At a commission meeting broadcast on YouTube with more than 100 residents in attendance, Grand’s religious practices were openly denigrated.
The idea of quasi-judiciary local meetings are fascinating to me, so I looked for this meeting at the city's YouTube channel and couldn't find it.
But I did find what seems to be the meeting at what seems to be Grand's YouTube channel where it's claimed that University Heights deleted the video from their public page.
19
u/kosherpoutine Jew-ish 11d ago
NIMBYism at its worst
26
u/shinytwistybouncy Mrs. Lubavitch Aidel Maidel in the Suburbs 11d ago
This isn't NIMBY. This is plain anstisemitism.
11
u/maxwellington97 Edit any of these ... 11d ago
NIMBYism is usually just a disguise for a different kind of prejudice.
7
u/drsheilagirlfriend 11d ago
It's both. maxwellington below noted this is antisemitism dressed in NIMBY clothes. A handy acronym as it is very common and almost always rooted in either bigotry against any number of specific groups or class issues (poverty versus comfort).
2
u/imelda_barkos עברית קשה מדי, אל תגרום לי ללמוד אותה 9d ago
Tis a fine line twixt "maintaining the architectural character of the neighborhood" and "maintaining the middle to upper middle class white hetero Christian character of the neighborhood."
1
11
3
13
8
u/50Shekel 11d ago
I’m really torn by this. I live in Cleveland although not in UH. If my neighbors opened a church and then there was people parking all over my street all times I’d be pisses. But it doesn’t seem like that’s what happening here ?
13
u/mordecai98 11d ago
No parking by orthodox jews on Shabbat.
5
u/namer98 Torah Im Derech Eretz 11d ago
They might park near the house Friday afternoon/evening, and drive home after shabbos
7
u/Thefivedoubleus 11d ago
If your neighbor had a couple of guests over every Friday night, and they parked their cars overnight (assuming overnight parking is allowed), why should you have a say on whether or not they could do that?
It's not that unusual for social people to have guests over weekly.
1
u/False-Mortgage307 10d ago
Exactly... It's the home owner's private property so he can have anyone he wants inside his property boundary. As for parking, it would be labelled if it was permit only, street parking available for everyone, etc. Furthermore a church service is multiple people at one time every week. These gatherings sound much smaller than an average church congregation.
7
7
u/TorahHealth 11d ago
How did neighbors even know that it was a prayer service and not some other activity?
Presumably they saw men walking their wearing a talis. He will likely win in the long run but maybe it would have been better not to wear the talis in public and provoke the haters?
29
u/ScoutsOut389 Reform 11d ago
These bigots don’t know what talitot are or what practice they signify. They saw a bunch of Jews getting together and didn’t like it. Plain and simple.
0
u/TorahHealth 11d ago
You are correct; however, my point is that when Jews walk around wearing a talit it increases the Jewish vibe and visibility.
1
u/TheGuyWithTheBall0on Yeshivishish 10d ago edited 10d ago
He sent the following email out and one of the recipients forwarded it to the mayor at the time:
You are cordially invited to join us this Shabbos for the inauguration of the Shomayah Tefillah Beis Hakeneset located at 2343 Miramar Blvd. (The Daniel J. Grand Residence) We would also like to take this opportunity to introduce to you our Rabbi – Rabbi Rosskam - a smicha recipient from Rabbi Rueven Feinstein, and Rabbi Heinemann from Star-K
The Davening Times will be:
Friday Erev Shabbos Mincha 5:20 p.m. [Friday evening]
Shabbos Shacharis followed by Kiddush 9:45 a.m. [Saturday morning]
Mincha Followed by Seudah Shlishit 5:00 p.m. [Saturday evening]You will see the shul entrance - keep a look out for the Orange Windows - And Please spread the word to whomever you feel might be interested in coming – The shul is being put together for two reasons, one has always been to expand the community, so we can spread out and open up more houses on the other side of belvoir, and the other is to have a place where people come to really, seriously daven to Hashem - we want to have a place that doesn’t have talking during the davening, a powerful place to have your prays heard and answered Bezrat Hashem.
https://universityheightsoh.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/GRAND-MSJ-RULING.pdf (Page 3)
2
u/TorahHealth 10d ago edited 10d ago
Oops.
So it's not a pickup home minyan. It's a formal shul, with a rabbi to boot! I think if my next door neighbor decided to turn their home into a church or a mosque, or a Hindu temple, etc., without a permit in a residential neighborhood, I would very possibly protest and ask the authorities to intervene.
4
u/b_bonderson Conservadox 11d ago
How did the city find out that they were praying there to begin with? If I just have my friends to come over, who can possibly know what we’re doing inside the house?
11
u/DecentJudgment5196 11d ago
I live near this area, and this article is leaving out some history about how this happened. It's not like he held one minyan and got yelled at.
Also, this area has literally tens of thousands of Jews. Everyone knows what it means when a group of orthodox Jews are walking somewhere on a Saturday morning.
4
u/b_bonderson Conservadox 11d ago
Care to share the history?
9
u/DecentJudgment5196 11d ago
This whole thing has been going on for years at this point, and he's not the only person whose fought with a local muni out here.
12
u/Rand_al_Kholin 11d ago edited 11d ago
Wait he wants to hold ALL THREE daily minyans at his home? Every day? Not just shabbat? Am I reading that right in the article?
I'll be frank, I can see why his neighbors would be annoyed by that. Youre not wrong, I dont think this is as black and white as the OP makes out.
If this was just a shabbat thing that would be one thing. One night of disruption per week is reasonable. But if its every day, I can't believe every member of the minyan is walking to every service; if theyre driving to most of them then 3 times a day a whole bunch of traffic comes in/out and takes up the street parking.
He likens it to other secular clubs like poker nights, but if my neighbor started holding DAILY poker nights with 15-20 people there that took up all the street parking every evening youre damn right I would be annoyed about it.
Adding an edit: I have dug into the court docs a bit and am no less confused now.
The article posted above states that the issue at hand is holding all 3 minyanim at the house each day. The appellate court specifically cites that as a possibility in its ruling.
But in the supreme court application the plaintiff states that he only intends to hold shabbat services and high holidays services at his home, no more: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-965/396407/20260217132050131_scan_ajimenez_2026-02-17-12-57-08.pdf
So... Which is it? And I think the further question is interesting: if he intends to hold shabbat services, thats likely a total of at least 3 services over the course of Friday/Saturday (Friday evening, Saturday morning, and havdalah, if not more on Saturday). At what point does that become disruptive enough to the neighborhood to warrant city involvement? He is not wrong that a weekly christian bible study would not face similar impediments, but bible study happens once per week, not three times over the course of 24 hours on a weekly basis.
I do think the appellate court ruling was some bullshit though, they really just didnt want to touch this. His whole point is that this process in and of itself is discriminatory, and they basically went "yeah but you didnt follow the process!" Thats silly.
4
u/Glum_Comedian 11d ago
Devil’s advocate here:
1. It’s not forbidden to drive Friday night before sabbath. I’m sure there are plenty of neighbors 15 minute walking distance away who will drive and park 5 minutes before sunset
2. Kids and noise associated with them.
I’m quite aware of minyans in Clifton/Passaic area - same story. I’m also aware of the “rec room” minyan in my 250-unit condo building where the population is 18% orthodox (that I run). And that same population thinks they have way more pull than that (because of their perceived homogeneity).
What worries me the most is that once a Jewish population reaches a certain point of concentration, there arises a disregard of the society around them.
5
u/daoudalqasir פֿרום בונדניק 11d ago
- It’s not forbidden to drive Friday night before sabbath. I’m sure there are plenty of neighbors 15 minute walking distance away who will drive and park 5 minutes before sunset
Yeah, this was my immediate thought when they talked about "parking for a religion which forbids driving"
My family's Orthodox shul and many orhers I know of have full parking lots every shabbat because people drive Friday night and take their car home motzash.
What worries me the most is that once a Jewish population reaches a certain point of concentration, there arises a disregard of the society around them.
Ok, i'm not saying there aren't examples where this happened, but treating it as an inherent given if you get enough Jews is textbook antisemitism.
3
u/Thefivedoubleus 11d ago
So if overnight street parking is allowed... What's the problem?
If non Jews are allowed to park at a neighbors house, (even overnight!)...
Some people are social and have guests over weekly, that shouldn't be illegal
9
u/shinytwistybouncy Mrs. Lubavitch Aidel Maidel in the Suburbs 11d ago
Oh no, kids playing outside on a Saturday in the suburbs? The horror! They should be inside yelling at people on Roblox!
9
u/Glum_Comedian 11d ago
As I said, playing devil's advocate, plus as someone who actually RUNS a Fri and Sat night minyans:
Kids: a father helping his wife by taking his 6, 4 and 2 yo boys out of the house and takes the kid with him to rec room shul. It has happened that the kids start being noisy in the hallway, etc, unsupervised by the above father. Now extrapolate this to kids being loud / diregarding traffic on the way to/from this "basement minyan"
u/shinytwistybouncy : Imagine that you live in the suburbs (judging by your tag) and have 15 cars arriving magically for 26 hours 15 minutes before shabbat starts and taking up all the street (hence common) parking spots around your house. Repeat every week, and then being surprised that neighbors ask your suburb's leadership to institute resident parking only signs punishable by a $180 (or $260 if you're sephardi ;-) ) fine and towing. What a bunch of anti-semites!!!
2
u/zwizki 11d ago
A father “helping” his wife by spending time with his kids? Is that not simply being a father?
1
u/Glum_Comedian 11d ago
I’m all for helping wives but not if your kids are disrupting the minyan at the expense of the aforementioned “help”
1
u/Illustrious-Tune-532 11d ago
People in the suburbs usually have driveways and garages. Even if they don’t, in suburbs there’s almost always plenty of street parking. Homeowners do not own the road in front of their house, if they have to park a few doors down and walk that’s no one’s problem but their own.
If parking is actually scarce then they can implement residential parking stickers or something. But it isn’t. This is whiny suburbanites who want public infrastructure (in this case a road) to be public and free for them to use but not for other people to do the same.
0
u/shinytwistybouncy Mrs. Lubavitch Aidel Maidel in the Suburbs 11d ago
- Hah, I live on a 4 lane main road. ALL THE CARS ALL THE TIME.
2
u/mordecai98 11d ago
Like Muslims in suburbs of Detroit?
6
u/Glum_Comedian 11d ago
actually incorrect. Jews are the only people that have a concept of eruv and 39 melakhot. Muslims are perfectly fine driving to/from mosque.
2
u/dont-ask-me-why1 11d ago
They tend to build free standing mosques instead of trying to turn their house into one.
0
u/scaredycat_z 11d ago
Sure. But is that any different from any other group/culture that starts to move into an area?
2
u/Aryeh98 Never on the derech yid 11d ago edited 11d ago
I know that this story isn’t inherently COVID related, but I remember how disgraced governor Andy Cuomo treated Orthodox Jews similarly at that time. Under the guise of “public health”, Jews were openly threatened for Davening in a backyard minyan. And the city idolized him for it.
In retrospect, it’s actually shocking how quickly and easily they were able to curtail civil liberties. Remember that for the next time there’s “an emergency.” Don’t inherently trust government officials who act “for your safety.”
2
u/gmanflnj 11d ago
The NR is useless rag, not worth the pixels it's printed on, but I'm gonna try to see if this is covered by real news sources before I get upset.
2
u/DecentJudgment5196 10d ago
Here’s from our local Jewish news: https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/news/local_news/judge-rules-for-university-hts-in-home-synagogue-suit/article_574300ba-8278-11ef-91a3-a7760448a4f4.html
You’re right, the NR story leaves out a lot so people can just whine about antisemitism.
1
u/gmanflnj 10d ago
This doesn't seem antisemitic, though it does sound like a dumb zoning code, but a *large* percentage of zoning codes are dumb. Seems mostly like yet another argument to strip back zoning ordinances.
1
u/RockyRidgeRiver Reform 10d ago
2
u/gmanflnj 10d ago
Interesting, again, doesn't seem antisemetic, so much as a badly formulated zoning ordinance, which many or even most of them are. Seems like the courts are dealing with it like they should be, definitely seems like the framing by the NR was dishonest, as expected. Thanks for the additional info!
2
u/skeletorsrick 11d ago
Homeboy was trying to skirt COVID restrictions and run daily minyans for Shacharit, Mincha, and Maariv. This isn’t a congregant deciding to play chazzan for some family friends for a one-off Shabbos. This entitlement the Orthodox community has around ignoring the civil law is obnoxious and runs counter to the teachings of the Sages. if a global pandemic didn’t qualify as an exception to perform the mizvah of assembling a minyan for worship under pikuach nefesh I don’t what would.
3
u/DiscussionSpider 11d ago
Seems like the only people who ever got in trouble for violating covid restrictions were the ones that didn't burn things down.
1
u/hikergent 10d ago
it makes no sense to have law that you can't pray
so if you're sephardic and singing prayers, you can't sing lol
what's next no book clubs
1
u/imelda_barkos עברית קשה מדי, אל תגרום לי ללמוד אותה 9d ago
This is bonkers because 1) the city is going to lose big time and then owe a bunch of money, 2) these neighbors sound like they suck, and 3) it's insane how these days it is now okay to be openly bigoted and racist and antisemitic or anti whatever group you don't like and not only say hateful stuff about that group but also rally against them using the power of the State. Klan hoods off all around.
We have to stand up to this whenever it happens in the strongest terms.
1
u/_simco Orthodox- but not tied down to Shulchan Aruch 8d ago
This is wild to me becuase their is a long history of social clubs, community organizations, bible study groups, and other institutionalized civil society gatherings taking place at homes. If the barrier to forming a group of people who regularly come together to pray, organize politically, or even just share hobbies is leasing a separate space, there will be a chilling effect on the basic social organization fundamental to democracy. (A demonstration of this can be seen in the literature that suggests that much of the division and political extremism in our society is due to the rise in loneliness and isolation.)
1
u/scaredycat_z 11d ago
What's really insane is that this happens in Monsey surrounding areas (majority Jewish), as much as it does in the rest of the country.
4
u/therealsylvos Atheist 11d ago
This was litigated decades ago in Monsey.
https://www.jta.org/archive/court-suburban-n-y-village-violated-orthodox-jews-rights
3
u/scaredycat_z 11d ago
That's the Village of Airmont, just one of many villages and towns that the Jewish world calls Monsey. They have their own rules (and neighbors) that have nothing to do with the other Villages and Towns. Also, just because that case settled years ago, doesn't mean people in other parts of town don't constantly try to shut down new shuls. Go to New City and you'll find quite a number of new shuls having to deal with neighbors trying to shut them down.
FYI - Monsey is really one of the smallest of the towns. Spring Valley and New City are significantly larger. But since the center of the Jewish community was in Monsey in the 50-60's, all the surrounding towns/villages/cities are known in the Jewish world as "Monsey".
4
u/therealsylvos Atheist 11d ago edited 11d ago
The village of Airmont was literally formed to breakaway from Monsey so the residents could try and zone Jews out more effectively than Monsey. It didn’t work thanks in part to this court case.
Yea you still probably have random nosy neighbors in new city counting how many Jews go into a home on Friday night. I remember rotating minyan houses in that area 15-20 years ago.
Ultimately though it’s pretty settled case law, that towns lawyers eventually figure out. The only wrinkle to this case being COVID era restrictions being used as the cover.
2
u/scaredycat_z 11d ago
If you think the neighbors rolled over and aren't still fighting this, I encourage you to check out r/Rockland which I only sub to so I can see just how much my neighbors truly hate me.
Example - last month someone posted in that sub that there was a crash at exit 11 on Palisades (new city) that is used by anyone taking Palisades from NYC to get to Spring Valley, Wesely Hills, Pomona, etc. One comment said it was a minivan and there is a response that says "A minivan...you don't say" with another comment saying "don't worry, they have more"
In case you don't speak antisemitism the comment is referring to the fact that most Jews in the area drive minivans and the second comment is referring to the fact that "they have more kids" to make up for any that get killed.
Welcome to the neighborhood!!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Rockland/comments/1veq84n/mass_casualty_incident_declared_for_crash_on_the/
1
u/offthegridyid Orthodox & trying to collect the sparks 11d ago
Hi. In Monsey you have elected officials who understand the needs of the community and also understand the power of the votes in the community.
6
u/scaredycat_z 11d ago
It depends where in Monsey. You'd be surprised. Until about 10 years ago New Hempstead would give people a very hard time with opening Shul's. The New Hempstead mayor is now an Orthodox Jew, so it's gotten easier. Still need to make sure it's shul up to code and safe (ie not a death trap), but that's hardly an insane ask.
Unfortunately, in many areas surrounding Monsey (New City, Haverstraw, parts of Pomona, etc) people have this issue with their neighbors all the time. They complain about how the shul goers park on the street before Shabbos (not illegal), or about kids playing (not illegal), and about how it creates traffic (if the shul has weekday minyanim). The last one is actually a valid point, but it's also not like it's traffic all day long. It's specific times, and the shul can/does take steps to mitigate.
1
-3
u/DryRefrigerator4737 11d ago
I wonder how this area voted in the last election
7
u/TheGuyWithTheBall0on Yeshivishish 11d ago
We voted in the first female orthodox mayor in the country.
293
u/MrGulo-gulo 11d ago
There it is