
An application to attach wooden markers on utility poles throughout Quogue Village, to create a religious boundary called an eruv, was denied on Friday by village trustees, and, earlier this week, those pushing for its establishment said they intend to sue the village over the rejection.
At their monthly meeting, the trustees voted 5-0 to accept a written decision that denies the application filed in January by the nonprofit East End Eruv Association (EEEA). The group wanted to install two markers, called “lechis,” on 46 utility poles in the village that are owned by Verizon and the Long Island Power Authority, and a single marker on two of the poles for an “indefinite and unlimited period of time,” the application states. Some of the poles are located along Montauk Highway, at the intersections of Quogue Street, Jessup Avenue and Old Depot Road. Additional markers would have been installed along Scrub Oak Road, Old Depot Road, Bayberry Lane, Old Country Road and Old Main Road, according to the denied application.
Quogue Mayor Peter Sartorius briefly summarized the resolution prior to its adoption Friday afternoon. He said that among the reasons for denying the application was a belief that it violates the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that the markers will create a problem for Village Attorney Richard DePetris. The mayor explained that, in the past, Mr. DePetris has consistently denied other requests to install signs on utility poles in the village that fall within its right of way.
When asked about the decision immediately after Friday’s meeting, Mr. Sartorius said: “I think the decision speaks for itself, so I do not need to comment.”
The five-page resolution states, in part: “The Board of Trustees believes that to protect the safety of our residents, to maintain the beauty and quality of life in the Village, and to avoid constitutional violations, and liability, rights of way should be kept clear. The lechis represent more than functioning, unattractive pieces of hardware.”
The decision also states that they do not believe that a denial of the application violates the free exercise clause of the Constitution.
Attorney Robert Sugarman of the Manhattan firm of Weil, Gotshal and Manges, who is representing the EEEA, said on Monday that the nonprofit intends to sue Quogue Village over the rejection.
“We are disappointed but not surprised by the decision,” Mr. Sugarman said. “We feel it is significantly flawed and plan to go back to court to challenge it.”
He said he could not say when the suit would be filed with the court, or what the EEEA would be seeking in terms of damages. Mr. Sugarman would only say that his client’s lawsuit would be filed within the next few weeks, as soon as all of the necessary paperwork can be processed.
When reached on Tuesday afternoon and asked about the threat of another lawsuit, Mr. Sartorius said: “There are already suits pending, so I don’t want to comment on this suit until I see it.”
If it files suit as promised, the EEEA will be embroiled in two lawsuits that name Quogue Village as a defendant. In January 2011, the EEEA filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that Southampton Town, and Quogue and Westhampton Beach villages were discriminating against Jewish people, citing their objection to the proposed boundary even though a formal application was never submitted at the time. The EEEA filed a formal application with Quogue in January, though it has not filed similar ones with Westhampton Beach or Southampton Town.
If created, the boundary would allow Orthodox Jews to engage in certain activities that are typically prohibited on the Sabbath, such as the pushing of baby strollers and wheelchairs, and the carrying of items, like cellphones, glasses, canes and keys. While the EEEA is pushing for the boundary, the Hampton Synagogue in Westhampton Beach is the only local house of worship that would benefit from its creation.
In November 2011, a judge denied a motion filed by the EEEA that sought the establishment of a temporary religious boundary in the western portion of Southampton Town, which included parts of Westhampton and all of Westhampton Beach Village. The request was denied by Judge Leonard D. Wexler of the U.S. District Court in Central Islip on the grounds that the EEEA never filed formal applications for the lechis with Westhampton Beach, Quogue or Southampton.
Mr. Sugarman explained this week that the EEEA has no intention of filing a similar application with Westhampton Beach Village, noting that, unlike Quogue and Southampton Town, there are no ordinances that would hinder the creation of an eruv. Quogue Village rejected its application after pointing out that the lechis would be installed on utility poles that fall within the public’s right of way.
Maybe they read a few of my posts?
Nah, probably not...
That would be like Catholic congregants of Sacred Hearts asking Southampton Village to confirm allowing or disallowing the eating of fish on Fridays...
Makes no sense.
It's an interesting doctrinal point. Under Orthodox Jewish doctrine, the eruv must be established with the consent of the local community UNLESS the residents are bigots. So the legal action to come will attempt to establish that the lechai'in must be allowed by law AND that Quogue residents are bigots.
Nothing personal, Quoguites.
>> "UNLESS the residents are bigots"
What is your source on that?
HHS is poking fun at them (plaintiffs), unless I am mistaken.
Thanks for the info, but I remain confused...
That implementation of a finer point of doctrine requires the consent of a local authority implicitly suggests respect for that authority's own rules and reasons to grant a special request or not.
Should a recognized authority's response come back as a "No," perhaps it is just a "No," or a supportable "No," and not necessarily the presence of animus or prejudice.
That a sect would force such an issue anyway ...more seems to defy the spirit and intention of its own doctrine's directive to cooperate with local authority in the first place.
I apologize, and retract my statement that bigotry makes government approval of the eruv unnecessary. I relied on the assertion of a forum correspondent that I am unable to verify. As far as I can tell, a proclamation by a government authority (bigoted or not) authorizing the eruv is necessary for it to be valid.
The whole thing is costly and sad and both side are responsible for the break-down in communication.
This really is Quogue vs Religious articles attached to telephone ...more poles.
And no, Christmas lights, trees and Santa Claus are not religious articles.
Tenafly is not germane and the court will so find. In Tenafly, the eponymous town was found to have engaged in "selective enforcement" in that it had permitted symbols, religious an otherwise, on its utility poles before the Orthodox Jews made their application. Quogue has never permitted such attachments and has removed them whenever residents have placed them without authorization.
However, the only way that this question will be "decided" by the initial trial is ...more if the losing side declines to spend more money. The constitutional question of the propriety of posting ANY permanent religious symbols, regardless of prior practice, is still in question.
I do agree that it is sad that a tiny group has victimized blameless neighbors, again, by compelling them to waste their money opposing presumptuous self-assertion.
HUGE "technicality"...
Looked like my own updated birth certificate..
Of course, by stating this the logical conclusion will be that I'm intellectually bankrupt zealot.
"Because I want it" and "It's no big deal" don't count.
Let's hear it.
The "eruv" is just one of many examples of how the orthodox get around the supposed rules of their....and my religion.
Yes or no to all, no exceptions.