Tuesday, February 2, 2010

LiberTEA for Christians in Racine.

The City Council voted 14-1 against requiring a "Storefront" Church on Douglas Avenue to relocate or dissolve. Many of the Parrish members and it's Rev'd showed up and asked the City not void their lease. and the Rights of Property owner were upheld. Thanks to Denis at Free Racine and his urgent attention on this Matter several members of LiberTEA Racine were able to attend the Public forum and add their voices to the cause of the Liberty of the Church, the Parishioners, The Landlord and the Tenants, and all the other persons of Racine. Now the folks can pray in Peace. It was once again a victory against the City attempting to interfere in legal commerce thru it's micro-management. Of course we all accept the City has to have some planning. But if the City isn't prepared to purchase all of the buildings, and thus decide who all of the tenants will be. Sometimes the City leaders seem to feel this is a semi-private "Gated" community. It's not it's a city where people and businesses can choose to come and go, and if we want People and businesses to come we must make them feel welcome to make their own decisions with the own property. Subsequently the City needs to control itself when dictating who gets to live and operate where. In the past year we have blocked a Grocery, increased the cost of Liquor licenses; attempted to block a development in West Racine; And shoved Recycling bins onto everyone's doorstep, without a choice by the people.

Folks it shows that if we stand up and notify the Aldermen and the Mayor when an issue comes up we can change the direction of our city. Thanks to everyone who spoke, and thanks to all the Alderfolks who listened to the citizenry.


  1. Actually this reversal by the City was due in no small part to the fact that I called and emailed Milwaukee and national news media Monday afternoon. The producer at Fox 6 got back to me and I sent him more details. He ended up sending a team to Racine on Tuesday and they interviewed Helding (who was clearly supporting kicking the church to the curb), and Mr Servantez, the lawyer who owns the building and represents the church. I am sure that the city council saw the media firestorm coming and backed off (do you think Helding had THAT significant mind change a few hours later because of - reason? logic?)

  2. DB -

    What was the "leg" the city was trying to stand on with this from a legal perspective?

    I'm a bit out of the loop on that...