The question of the construction of a mosque within a few blocks of the site of Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, those destroyed by terrorists on September 11th 2001, has raised a good deal of noise and generated a good deal of debate. The issue has been presented as one of Freedom of Religion and tolerance on the one hand versus sensitivity to perceptions and feelings of the majority on the other. President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg have both weighed in on the side of those who wish to build the mosque, suggesting that it is un-American to inveigh against them or any group because of their religion.
No one is arguing that Muslim’s don’t have the right to build a mosque. And in fact there are already quite a few mosques in New York City and on Manhattan itself. The argument is simply one of propriety. And who gets to define propriety when it comes to city zoning? The answer, of course is - depending on the city involved - the zoning board or the city council or some such group.
Herein lies the only issue that really needs to be addressed. Members of zoning boards are not supposed to be visionaries, instituting dramatic and sweeping changes in their city or town. Rather, they are supposed to represent the stated interests of the people, balancing the concerns of the citizens as a whole with those of the individual property owner and the developer. Thus, without any issue of free speech or any other freedom, a city is perfectly within its authority to say no to a church or a business going into one block of the city but allowing it to go into the next block over. Can this be contested in court? Of course. (In fact, in this day and age everything and anything seemingly can be contested in court, but that is the subject of another discussion.) Nevertheless, zoning of a town or a city is something that is a function of the sense of what is proper and where it is proper, based on the opinions of the people of the town or city.
All well and good. But, in as much as elections are not held every year, but more likely every two years (or more), how does the zoning board reflect the concerns of the citizens? Well, if they are being responsible, they should note the when there is public displays of concerns and when an issue energizes a large number of people they should either delay the decision until there can be some sort of referendum, or they should, assuming money is available, conduct some polling and hold hearings.
The point is that we live in a country that is based on participatory government. The people of New York are, according to a wide range of polling, quite upset about a decision of the planning commission (and whoever else is involved – I don’t know the official name of the committee and don’t really care). Others may be upset, for whatever reason, but it is New Yorkers who are the only ones who get to actually play in this particular game. The city counsel and the planning commission and whoever else is involved should be listening to their bosses – their real bosses – the citizens of New York City at least long enough to have some public debate. What we don’t need is this or that commission acting with no regard to public opinion in the face of some very real and pent up emotions. If the members of the councils and commissions feel that their argument is sound, then stand up in open debate and present it. But to ignore, or worse, attack as un-American, the concerns of 70% of the population and then to dismiss it out of hand, is nothing more than a local brand of tyranny. We are a democracy not an oligarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment