I. PROLOGUE

We are facing a crisis in our time. Religious ministries which often provide the only significant human as well as spiritual service in local communities are being threatened in the City of New York. This is not the usual threat stemming from the loss of governmental or private grants for social service programs, or even the shifting or demise of individual congregations. It is a threat to religious freedom that has arisen because of a conflict with a worthwhile though lesser goal, namely, the landmarking of distinctive buildings.

In 1966, the New York City Council addressed itself to a desire to help protect the City's architectural heritage by preserving forever samples of distinctive and historic buildings. A landmarks preservation law was enacted. Under this law, once a building is declared a landmark, its owner is forbidden under pain of criminal penalties to alter or demolish his property unless he successfully goes through an uncertain, time-consuming and costly proceeding before the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

While the landmarks preservation law anticipated tire need to relieve commercial owners of this freeze on unprofitable structures, the law failed to take adequately into account the needs of the nonprofit owners – religious, educational and charitable organizations – for which "profit" is measured in terms of human and spiritual service and not in dollars. The law has had a particularly hard impact on the religious community because Churches and Synagogues by their very nature are distinctive in their design.

Buildings which were designed and built to serve well the people at one time are not always able to serve adequately today. Energy conservation has become a major concern as fuel prices approach ten times what they were a decade ago. Shifting needs within the local community require a new and creative response on the part of the religious congregation seeking to minister effectively, whether at the same location or elsewhere. Older buildings, however elegant they may be or have been, sometimes become the impediment to the very ministry they were constructed to promote.

Synagogues and Churches, in seeking to address mounting needs in every local community, have come to find themselves increasingly confronted by the landmarks Preservation Commission. At best, this has resulted in significant delay and increased the cost of proposed renovation and development programs. At worst, a landmark designation, by retarding or blocking the development of a site, drains off valuable resources which otherwise would be redeployed for more effective ministry. And with the meager resources of most' congregations, the expense in time and funds may cause a severe interference with its spiritual and social purposes.

The City's law has, quite unintentionally, created a crisis of so-called "Church/State" proportions. In forcing religious organizations to expend their charitable funds for the maintenance of outmoded and inadequate buildings, the City government is, in fact, directing the Church and Synagogue on how it is to use its resources which have been contributed for its religious ministry, not for architectural preservation. Not only is this a flagrant interference with the free exercise of religion (which is guaranteed by tile First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States) but it is a matter of grave concern on behalf of the citizens who will be denied the services which that ministry would otherwise have provided if the religious resources had not been usurped by government for architectural preservation.

In September, 1980, representatives of two small congregations on Manhattan's Upper West Side appealed to the religious leaders of tile City. These two congregations had learned that their property was the subject of hearings before the Landmarks Preservation Commission and each recognized the potentially disastrous impact of a landmark designation. The Committee of Religious Leaders, representing officially the Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Jewish Communities of the City of New York, appointed this Interfaith Commission to Study the Landmarking of Religious Property. The members of the Interfaith Commission, who are named in Appendix C, include attorneys, an architect, a sociologist, and religious leaders of this City.

This is a crisis of competing values in our society. It is vital for any culture to prevent the erosion of its basic values. The maintenance of a building, as a shrine to architecture must not be allowed to drain the congregation of its resources which are needed desperately for its ministries. Said simply: The preservation of bricks and mortar, however attractively arranged by man, can never equal in value the ministry to men and women who have been created by and in the image of God.

It should be noted that this Report in no way seeks to question the legitimate control which government exerts on private owners (whether religious or otherwise) to require them to maintain their properties so as to protect the public safety and health. We strongly object to the forced diversion by government of resources dedicated for religious ministry to serve instead the cause of architectural preservation.

In this Report the Interfaith Commission uses the common term "religious property." Strictly speaking, property is neither religious nor non-religious. By this term we mean to describe that property which is used for religious ministry.

This Interfaith Commission, after extensive work and consultation, has concluded its study and respectfully submits this Report with recommendations to the Committee of Religious Leaders.