Rejoice! Spiritual wickedness triumphs in Dundas

Holy Cross Episcopal, Dundas (wikipedia photo)Last Saturday’s Nfld News article, When development meets the past, tells the story of a conflict between the descendants William C. Cleland and Rejoice! Lutheran Church which now owns the former Holy Cross Episcopal church in Dundas.  Pastor Dan Clites and the Building Team wanted to move the Cleland family graves as part of the Rejoice! expansion plans. Cleland family descendants opposed the move.  The conflict has evidently been resolved:

Clites says former Holy Cross members gave him the names of Cleland relatives, who he said OK’d the plan to move the graves. Those relatives later withdrew their support, he says, under pressure from family members. That pressure, along with a desire to be good neighbors has led Rejoice! to rework its initial plan. It’s now working on a redesign that will leave the graves, which are encircled by decorative metal fencing, intact…

But had the church decided to move forward with the relocation, [State Archaeologist Scott Anfinson] isn’t sure he would have allowed it. Since the Cleland graves were never recorded with the county, approval for moving the remains rests with the archaeologist. And since the site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the descendants opposed the proposed move, Anfinson said he’d likely have denied such a request.

When I first heard about the issue, I thought it was reasonable for Rejoice! to want to move the graves and I thought it was reasonable for the descendants to object.  But last week, prior to the article’s publishing and the resolution of the conflict, Pastor Clites published his weekly update in which he wrote about the issue:

Dan Clites… we have recently come against principalities of opposition (Ephesians 6:12).  Why should we expect anything less?  When a church serves in the Light of the Holy Spirit, darkness will not like it. 

Here’s the verse in Ephesians 6:12 (King James Version):

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

For Clites to associate Helen Albers and Cleland family descendants with ‘principalities’ and ‘darkness’ and ‘spiritual wickedness’ is more than a little ridiculous. Un-Christian even, if I may, as an atheist, say so. And I would assume that MN State Archaeologist Scott Anfinson would have been included among the principalities had he ruled against Rejoice!.

That the conflict was resolved in part because of Rejoice!’s "desire to be good neighbors" (Nfld News reporter Suzy Rook’s words) seems disingenuous, given Clites’ words a few days prior. That he would use the words of Jesus ("Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead") to argue that his opponents’ beliefs about the sacredness of grave sites are misplaced is outrageous.

Clites owes these people an apology.

Here’s the full text and screen capture of the Rejoice! Update Dec. 6 – Dec. 12, 2010 by Pastor Dan Clites:

 

Rejoice! Update Dec. 6 - Dec. 12, 2010

Dear Friends,

Here is a brief Building Campaign update:  We continue to move steadily along in raising our projected budget goal of $750,000.  Keep in mind that we have already invested over $230,000 for our current ministry site.  Praise God, for we are doing well!  Thank you for your continued sacrificial giving towards adding a worship center and parking lot onto our current ministry site so we can start worshipping on campus— hopefully by the fall.

As mentioned in our December 5th worship service, we have recently come against principalities of opposition (Ephesians 6:12).  Why should we expect anything less?  When a church serves in the Light of the Holy Spirit, darkness will not like it.  Most of the opposition has come from a local family that doesn’t want us moving the Cleland grave site 50-feet and into the northend cemetery.  They believe it is disrespectful to the dead. Our Building Team believes the most respectful and historic thing to do is gracefully move the remains and the headstones so they are not in the way of our important expansion. 

From all this, we are now expecting an article about the "grave situation" in the Northfield News this coming week.  Please know that your Building Team has done everything legally and morally.  In fact, our plans have already been approved by the city of Dundas.  While we are sensitive to the past, our calling is to take the gospel to the living so they may not die in their sins (Romans 6:1-14).  Please do not write a letter to the editor in response to the article.  IF that is needed, it will come from the Vision and Building Teams.  Thanks for your great trust and your prayers of support for the mission we share.

One day an interested party asked Jesus to come along with him.  Jesus said, "Yes!"  The man’s reply, however, showed that his priority was misplaced:  "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."  But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."  (Matthew 8: 21-22).

Our mission at Rejoice! is to follow Jesus for the sake of life in proclamation of the true gospel.  There is no higher purpose!

This coming Sunday, December 12th, I’ll continue our Advent Message series on "Signs of a Coming Savior".  We’ll take a look at Luke 2 and see three Signs of a higher Christmas purpose: Celebration, Salvation and Reconciliation.

Until then, have a GOD-week!

– Pastor Dan Clites

458 thoughts on “Rejoice! Spiritual wickedness triumphs in Dundas”

  1. The citizen petition requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Rejoice! Church is on the Dundas City Council agenda tonight (agenda is labeled incorrectly April 11). Here’s the PDF in the Council packet that has all the details:
    http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Rejoice-EAW.pdf

    It includes an email from John Klockeman that starts out:

    My name is John Klockeman and I am one of the chairpersons of the Rejoice! Building Team (Committee). While we have been following the dialogue on the local blog (Locally Grown Northfield) regarding our proposed addition to the former Holy Cross site in Dundas, we would like to take a moment to clarify some of the incorrect information circulating about our proposal, who we are, and why we are proposing our expansion. I appreciate Mr. Pribyl’s candid responses on the blog until recently and hope this communication sheds some more light on our proposal.

  2. Thanks, Raymond. I see the Nfld News axed the pre-meeting article that I linked to this morning:
    http://northfieldnews.com/content/council-weighs-assessment-church-project

    and ‘repurposed’ it into a new article at:
    http://northfieldnews.com/content/council-nixes-assessment-church-project-updated

    Why do they do that shit?! aarrgghh!

    Anyway, the blurb at the top now says:

    The Dundas City Council in a 4-1 vote found that a building construction project at Rejoice! Church shouldn’t require an environmental assessment. Voting for the assessment was Councilor Nathan Ryan.

    Stephanie Henricksen, who had advocated for the environmental review, a look at the project’s impact on the site and surrounding area, said in an Tuesday morning e-mail to the News that she and others are considering filing a legal challenge of the decision.

    Mayor Glenn Switzer, noting that the council’s vote could force such a move, said Monday night that that was “OK with (him).”

  3. Chad Pribyl, Nathan Ryan, and Ryan Carroll all asked decent questions of McCarthy. While I have no reason to believe McCarthy would be unreasonably supportive of this, his answers were very obfuscated. Pribyl at one point asked who would pay for an EAW (because some members of the community had the false impression the City had to pay). Rather than simply saying, “the applicant pays for an EAW,” he gave about a 5-minute confusing answer saying that, while the applicant pays for the EAW-proper, it could involve staff time, and really the cost shouldn’t be a consideration anyway.

    Glenn Switzer and Grant Modory clearly had their minds made up going into the meeting. Modory in particular was very dismissive of citizen complaints and concerns, saying that regardless of substantive objections, the real issue behind them was “feelings” and resistance to change, and people just need to get over it.

    1. Sean- I think Switzer and Modory were correct in their assesment. This is a case of a narrow definition of the law on the books. The RGU must decide what it is going to base its decision upon, and they chose a narrow definition. Any decision they would make, be it narrow or broad, could be challenged in a court of law. I think Switzer’s comment about that being ok is just an expression of his confidence in this definition. I think councilor Pribyl’s example of whether he could legally fire a gun if he was one foot outside his property line was a good example. As long as he had the permission of the land owner adjacent to his property, then the City of Dundas would have no legal grounds to press charges against him. According to the law, that is the same case here. The portion of the existing building proposed to be altered is legally outside the jurisdiction of the Historical Registery. There are reasons we have laws, and this is a good example.

      As far as McCarthy’s answers being “obfuscated”, he was answering with the portions of the laws that he had on record and had been submitted to the council. My personal opinion of the accusation of predjudice on his part was that it was unfounded.

    2. My issue with Modory is not as much his vote, but his dismissiveness toward citizen complaints.

      I think there’s an unfortunate issue that this vote felt like the councilors were saying they were “for” or “against” the church expansion. I don’t see why they wouldn’t all be personally against the church expansion; the building project is harmful to the original town of Dundas, and unlike other aesthetic offenses — Kmart or Menards — they won’t even pay taxes to the City. That’s not to say they should be throwing up unfair obstacles, but they certainly should not be going out of their way to move the expansion along quickly on this historic property.

      Obviously Rejoice has a right to do what it wants with its property, but there is no reason the City should not hold them to a good faith standard of the law. It is not in good faith to shoot off a gun a foot outside the CIty limits — in fact, that was Pribyl’s point, as I heard it. Likewise, they are not preventing Rejoice’s expansion. They would have simply been asking that the church undergo an expensive of a few thousand dollars out of a million-dollar project to get a better environmental picture. That’s not a vote against the church; that’s a reasonable, good-faith standard.

    3. Sean- I think this is a case of how to apply the laws at hand. If I understand the events properly, this was not the first time this issue had come before the council. I don’t believe Modory was being “dismissive.” I think he was more pragmatic. There is a time to stop protesting and face what is actually going on, especially in light of the legal ramifications. To draw this process out longer would just have increased the costs to the city and, IMO, have resulted in the same conclusion. For Rejoice! to pay for the EAW doesn’t necessarily cover all the city’s responsibility to investigate the information and make another proposal to the council. The pressing of the nose only draws blood (see Proverbs 30:33).

    1. Unfortunately, the “News” didn’t print my original letter that was submitted by deadline to be published before the Dundas City council meeting. There were omissions and edits that changed the intent of the letter. Here it is in it’s original form:

      Holy Cross preservation:

      As many in the Dundas area know, Church of the Holy Cross on the South side of Dundas was closed in June of 2006. Rejoice! Church of Northfield purchased the property in January of 2010. Much controversy surrounds the circumstances of the closing and subsequent sale. Neighbors and Holy Cross parishioners viewed with great concern, the stripping of the sanctuary, removal of trees and plans for moving historic gravesites.

      State archeology helped clarify the graves could not be moved. Other questions remain as to design, construction, addition to the historic building, traffic plan and storm water runoff which could be addressed in an Environmental Assessment worksheet. Citizens petitioned for the EAW in February. City Administrator, John McCarthy, maintains a vote on the EAW is not triggered until Rejoice! submits an application for the building permit.

      The application is now complete and both items, the requirement for an EAW and application for a building permit are expected to be taken up by Dundas City Council at it’s meeting Monday, April 25, 7:00 pm at Dundas City Hall on Railway Street.

      Obviously, there are many issues surrounding the grand scale plans being made for the site, imposing significant change to the quiet demeanor of the small town neighborhood and changing, forever…, what is considered historic property.

      All residents in the area with an interest in historic preservation, who may have fond memories of Holy Cross Church, it’s Strawberry Festival ice cream socials, have attended services, funerals, have been baptized or attended one, been married in or attended one, confirmed, taught Sunday school in, or even passed by and enjoyed taking in the beautiful, quaint architecture of the building are invited and will want to attend. Speak to the issue if you feel moved to. Thanks for your attention, hope to see you there!

      I was assured there would be a spot, that submission was timely and there wouldn’t be a problem with the letter being included in the Saturday issue April 23.

      Whatever the opinion of others, there’s no excuse for misrepresenting by quote or written word. Perhaps the News has the right to edit, but not to change the intent of a submission. Thanks.

      1. Julie- I think you have experienced the same thing anyone has experienced in submitting a letter to a printed publication. Each publication states all the necessary caveates to cover what they do to fit size, etc., on the page. The problem is that the staff is not all knowing and does not necessarily give weight to statements that the particular writer may prefer. That is one advantage to this type of a public venue. As long as you do not cross Griff’s threshold of civility, then what you say is word for word the way you intended. Thanks for submitting your original letter. When I read the NN link above, my first thought was that this was “edited” before presss time.

        Also, I was not aware that three and a half years had passed between the “closing” of Holy Cross and the sale of the property. That seems like quite a long time for the settlement of the whole thing by the Episcopal Diocese. But, then, there are a lot of limitations on future uses of this type of property.

  4. Mr. George: I adressed the NN printing of the letter, presented my initial submission here, and stand corrected on the date. To anyone else taking offense to the incorrect date of the closing of Holy Cross, that is the least of the issue, so sorry to offend.

    1. Julie- I certainly wasn’t offended by the typo. In fact, I had to go back and reread the date in the NN link. “6” or “9” sometimes registers the same with this dyslexic! It just didn’t stick with me in the first reading. Besides, the date really has nothing to do with your comment.

  5. I went to view Rejoice’s building permit documents, under an MGDPA request. Dundas city staff were very helpful.

    Here are many of the documents: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdho/sets/72157626508666525/. I apologize for the poor quality — the plotter sheets had been folded several times over. Rejoice should, in my opinion, release original digital copies of these on their website as a good faith effort to let the public see their plans. Particularly since so much discussion has happened online.

    Nothing seemed terribly out of the ordinary, though I would note that all of these plans show an entrance/exit on E Hamilton Street. It is also quite clear that the sanctuary (“worship center”) will essentially be a warehouse. This and other documents show “future windows”: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdho/5681632498/. It appears that, as built, the sanctuary will be a windowless box.

    1. Sean- In case you hadn’t noticed, City Light Church, formerly New Covenant, is just that- a Butler steel building. Until the remodeling we did a couple years ago, precipitated by the huge hail storm, there were only windows along the front. We survived quite well those many years.

      1. John–
        My understanding is that that building is a former auto shop, designed and built for highway frontage. It is not a historic 19th century church site built for a town/village context. Seems like apples and oranges.

      2. I’d also note that the plainest side of the building is the side facing the town of Dundas: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdho/5681069341/in/photostream/. While other sides have strips of stone, which the architect claims will help coordinate it with the original church, the side facing Dundas has no windows or even stone ornamentation.

        I would also note the intentional choice to cater only to cars. John Klockeman said in his letter included in the city council packet that Rejoice will maintain the existing entrances from the sidewalk on S 2nd St. This is true, but that will provide access to offices, not the narthex or sanctuary or any public area. Ideally, the “face” of the church should have been the town, not the highway. But at a minimum, sidewalks should be installed along E Hamilton St to connect to the walk along the parking lot for people walking from the rest of Dundas. Also wouldn’t kill them to install some bike racks by the new entrance 😉

      3. Sean- I wasn’t around when our building was built. It is my understanding that it was originally a furniture store. It was then used a short time as a manufacturing facility for a local printed circuit company. My point is that our type of church (similar to Rejoice!) does not need a traditional “church building” like the European Gothic edifices historically associated with denominational Christianity. We only need a place large enough for our congregants to meet and be warm and dry in inclement weather.

  6. I gonna change where I do my target shootin practice now! ONE foot out of Dundas… Could somebody send me a map of the counselors closest to city lines??? I think that would be the best spot to set up my cans.

    Let’s see if their example is anything more than a submarine with screen doors.

    Yes, I’m being facetious here, don’t even own a gun. But in this age of greater sensitivity to the use of such language by political personages, the example used referring to firing one foot out of Dundas is also a prime example of the lack of common sense, or an indication of dangerous arrogance on the part of the speaker.

    It’s a shame such people are in office.

    1. Michelle,

      While I feel like arguing with you on the internet is like paddling upstream against the wind, I will say this. I would like you to explain to me, in detail, what I meant when I made the comments your refering to. I know that you can’t, because you weren’t at the meeting when I made them. You have evidently completely taken my comments out of context and don’t understand the point that I was trying to make. Since it is apparently beneath you to come to a Dundas council meeting and you would rather fire off on local forums about issues you seem to have no interest in besides stirring the pot online, you will never know what I meant when I made the comment. Unless, of course, you would like to call me and allow me to explain my comments to you.

      As I have said before, while I greatly appreciate forums like these being here, when it comes to people making uninformed, inaccurate, personal attacks, I will defend myself. My address is 1613 Pinnacle Dr. and my lot is the current city boundary on two sides.

      I have more common sense at 33 years old than you could ever hope to have and it’s a shame people like you are allowed to spew jibberish like this online. I can’t wait to see what comes next.

      Sean – You DID seem to understand my point, and I thank you for coming to the meeting. You points were well made and I appreciate them.

      John – Thank you for coming to the meeting as well.

      Good day,

      Chad Pribyl
      763-245-0811
      ctpribyl@yahoo.com

      1. Chad- You are welcome. The point you made has two sides, and I thought at the time that is what you were aluding to. There is the side of weighing what your actions can precipoitate, and acting accordingly to what you want to answer. But, in a court of law, it is the law that has final jurisdiction over the case. In applying laws, it is sometimes down to a point of splitting hairs. I thought the council was wise in their understanding and application of the law in this case. Just as firing a gun on your neighbors property would have ramifications, you would still be protected under the law. I can’t say from first hand knowledge, but I believe Rejoice! was cognizant of the laws covering this type of property and acted within them. Perhaps they could not foresee this level of reaction, but they do have the protection of the law. I have a daughter your age, and I think you did very well in carrying out your responsibilities to the City and the Councul. Keep up the good work!

      2. And, please forgive my lack of ability to hit the correct keys on this blasted keyboard! Council, not Councul!

      3. Mr Pibyl,
        Were I able to attend the meeting I certainly would have. I was in surgery for a carotid blockage.

        Perhaps you are right, my comments were over the top. I am on medication and should have let it morning effects wear off before I responded.

        I usually chew on what I want to say for several hours before typing, as my intent is rarely to insult, regardless of whatever someone has said to or about me.
        I see that is not how you operate, though I understand your displeasure.

        I apologize for causing such rage. I AM very interested in more than just “stirring the pot” with uneducated writing, Sir. I should have stayed off this blog topic, as I have for sometime now due to it’s oftentime rude comments, as I care so very deeply and am greatly frustrated at my current inabilty to be more involved. I was wrong to become as rude as those who caused my leaving it before I got ill, illness does not excuse me anymore than their cloaking themselves in christian dogma to justify their own remarks.

        Be well.

      4. shooot, well until now..perhaps, my employer didn’t know about the med procedure.. ooops! Shhhh!~

    2. I have to defend councilman Chad Pribyl on his analogy, even if it was not actually fit to the situation–Chad was pointing out that it would be wrong for him to fire a gun so close to houses even if it was outside the city limits as it is against the law to discharge a firearm inside the city limits. He was saying that the proximity to the border of Dundas would make it wrong–and in that he is right.

      The analogy was flawed however. Rejoice is not causing “destruction in whole or in part” away from the historic structure–they are causing the destruction on the historic structure.

      Rejoice obviously read the rules regarding EAWs and saw that an EAW was required under the rules. (Something that city administrator John McCarthy completely missed and refused to acknowledge.) So a Rejoice member wrote a letter to the city council and claimed that Rejoice’s construction was NOT on the historic structure because the south wall which will be completely covered is outside of Lot 8 (it goes onto Lot 7) on the 10 lots that make up the church property.

      Stay with me here, because this gets complicated. An expert from the Minnesota Historical Preservation Office sent a letter which we forwarded to the city council some weeks prior stating that the PARISH HALL is included in the registry–and the site included the legal description of the lots (8,9 & 10) plus the property description was the defining description of the property.

      SO the city had, from an authority, that the 7 1/2 feet of the parish hall that were on Lot 7 were also part of the Historic Registry—but John McCarthy did not include any of those materials in the packet he delivered to the city council–he only included information from Rejoice church–who came up with the far-fetched claime that the part of the building not on Lot 8 was not included in the registry.

      This is the fault of the city council–relying on Rejoice church to tell them what Rejoice church wants them to know–and ignoring the other informaiton. A staff report was delivered to the city council that ignored any of the information that countered the opinion of John McCarthy. This exclusion was insulting, and I had hoped at Chad’s comment that someone would suggest getting more information.

      Instead, the city council appeared to only care about the information that John McCarthy had provided in that packet and ignored all the information to the contrary. (If they did not believe the information we had delivered to them, they could have called any of the experts listed–we had provided phone numbers and addresses for all–and received the information directly from the experts.)

      What John McCarthy did was make a decision for the city council and then deliver only the materials that supported his decision–we were bushwacked. McCarthy continually told the council that the decision was at their discretion and did not inform them of the EAW requirement that was NOT discretionary.

      Rejoice, however, knows that an EAW is required on a historic structure and are just glad they ducked out of that requirement–just like firing a gun one foot outside the city limits–Rejoice must know that what they are doing is wrong. But they paint over it with their little lie that part of the parish hall does not count.

      Regarding the west wall which is undecorated and without windows, Rejoice is planning to build on there in the future going west and then another addition that would be against the west wall of the parish hall and join with the other additions–basically they intend to wrap around the parish hall completely.

      Their plan is destruction in whole or in part of a historic structure–and requires an EAW before they dig one shovel of dirt–but they are denying the public this information and refusing to comply with the requirements.

      It also appears that the parking lot will be inadequate for future expansion, and it defies reason that they will be able to suucessfully mitigate the additional stormwater runoff from their huge addition and the parking lot.

      It is unfortunate that the city council refuses to follow the state rules–although this is done by purposefully not getting the correct information–what you don’t know can hurt you.

      1. Jane- I have a question you may or may not be able to answer, although I promised(myself) I would not invite attack on this blog any more. (Does NoT mean I don’t care about the historic site though, I care very much)

        Anyhow, without insulting intent to ANYONE:
        When documents and verified information are submitted to city council and their legal eagle, is it Legal for such to be withheld in the decision making process?

        Follow-up: Wouldn’t the neglect or withholding of such information & documents either be prosecutable, or in the least greatly enhance any civil suit as a result of the decision made based on such a purposely incomplete packet?

        ***note-I am just asking questions here, not stating an opinion or suggestion!

      2. Michelle: much more complicated than that. Dundas is not very sophisticated, but they share something with other cities that have a lot more staff. When the staff wants a decision made, they simply write the report or sift the information through their own prejudice and present what supports their opinion. If the city council never asks for the detail to support the conclusions of staff, they never get the information. If they never ask if anyone might have a different view and why, they never have to consider that information.

        In this case, the council never asked their attorney to look at the information we presented regarding the rules requiring an EAW–they just went with John McCarthy’s opinion. They never asked for definition of the structure on the National Historic Registry and McCarthy just gave them his opinion that the parish hall didn’t count–and then when we presented a statement from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation OFfice, they either did not bother to read it or ignored the information in favor of the opinion of a member of Rejoice church.

  7. Today’s Nfld News: Church cornerstone will remain

    In a Tuesday evening e-mail to the News, Rejoice! Church’s John Klockeman, who sits on its building team, said church leaders decided to leave stone, previously set for removal, in place.

    “Some details will need to be worked out in terms of the location of the 1964 cornerstone and whether or not to maintain the existing door at the southwest corner of the 1964 wing, the stone on the interior of the 1998 ramp addition, etc., but we will not be removing the stone as originally proposed,” he wrote.

    1. Wow….Rejoice! is moving towards the critics. I think it is time for the critics move towards them as well.

  8. Rejoice will be covering the stone over with an attached wall. They are not “moving towards cirtics.” They are claiming that somehow, their covering of the south wall with their own structure and the punching of a hole through the wall and their attachments to the parish hall are not “destruction in whole or in part.” John Klockeman and Rejoice know that an EAW is required and are making excuses with not complying with the rules.

    1. Jane- I just don’t understand what you are trying to accomplish with these accusations above and this one from 160.2:

      “Rejoice, however, knows that an EAW is required on a historic structure and are just glad they ducked out of that requirement–just like firing a gun one foot outside the city limits–Rejoice must know that what they are doing is wrong. But they paint over it with their little lie that part of the parish hall does not count.”

      How do you “know” that they “know” that this is wrong? Are you privy to some meeting minutes that have not been posted here? Are you actually accusing them of illegal activity? What is an EAW going to accomplish at this point in time?

      Calling something “wrong” is a value judgement and, IMO, different than charging that something is illegal. Mr Pribyl’s analogy, I think, demomstates this very thing. It is not illegal for him to fire a gun one foot outside the city limits if he has permission from the adjoining landowner to do so. It might rankel the neighbors, especially if he does not communicate with then beforehand, but he is covered by the law. I think the analogy is appropriate in this case.

  9. I am amazed that the NF news did not mention the challenge to the ‘no EAW vote’; is that not the current big piece of news on this story?
    The challenge was presented Monday at the MN COurt of Appeals; plenty of time to get in Wednesday’s NFNews edition.

  10. Kiffi, is this the Nfld News article you mean?

    Court asked to overturn decision on church project

    A decision last month by the Dundas City Council not to require an environmental assessment of a proposed building project is being challenged in the state Court of Appeals. In a May 9 petition attorney James K. Peters of Glenwood asked the court to review the council’s April 25 decision.

    Peters, who represents petitions Julie Schrader Bickett, Stephanie Henriksen and Jane Moline, wrote that the proposed project requires the property owner, Rejoice! Church, to complete what’s called an Environmental Assessment worksheet and that the city failed to enforce Minnesota Administrative Rules.

    1. Griff; did not see any such article in the paper edition of the ‘paper’, delivered to my house on Wednesday… did I miss it? Just looked again and didn’t see it…

      Is the one you are referencing just online?

    2. Griff- Thanks for linking the article. I think it is good that the Dundas City Council decision is settled in court. There has been a lot of speculation by we arm-chair lawyers (David L.- you are excluded!) as to whether laws were broken or misrepresented. Having a court weigh in on the issue should settle that issue. As far as the hurt feelings of the members of the former Holy Cross Church, well, that’s another matter. A court of law probably cannot resolve those.

  11. Today’s Nfld News: Work on Dundas church to begin

    Rejoice! Church leaders are moving ahead with construction despite a state Court of Appeals filing asking it to overturn a city council decision not to require an environmental review of the building project.

    Dundas City Administrator John McCarthy said Friday that he expected church officials to pick up a building permit later in the day. The permit will allow the church to begin work on a 6,343 square-foot addition. “We’re taking it one step at a time,” Rejoice! Pastor Dan Clites said Friday. He declined to comment further.

    McCarthy said he’s issuing the permit because building plans have met city specifications. Some changes to the project’s stormwater plan were required following the initial application, he said, which will modify how runoff is handled on the 2.5-acre site.

  12. Dundas is “dis’n da judge” and showing a disrespect toward the court. An injunction should be sought or the same judge could determine that the filing is frivolous.

    Both sides now have decisions to make. On one hand, does Rejoice go ahead with their plans in disreagrd of the court’s current jurisdiction and risk that court’s ire? On the other, do the those that file din couirt “roll over and play dead”, not pursue an injunction and let it all end?

    Do the hoeowners in the immediate area know what this will do to their property values and ability to sell now and in the future? Are they willing to eat the possible loss? That’s one helluva “tithe”.

      1. Michelle- I’m sure there are a lot of “hoe owners” in Dundas, what with the keen interest in gardening that I see when I drive through.

Leave a Reply to Steph Henriksen Cancel reply