Existing rules can handle religious sites

The issue of locating religious institutions is playing out in DuPage County with similar rhetoric to the national controversy over a proposed New York City mosque near ground zero, but the local action is easier to evaluate - and oppose.

For one thing, there are important differences between the two situations. The New York City issue focuses on emotional reactions to placement of a mosque near the site of the nation's worst terrorism attack. DuPage County planners' challenge is, at least on the surface, a practical argument over placement of all types of religious and service organizations - including churches, mosques and temples as well as clubs and fraternal organizations - in neighborhoods. The county, which currently allows more than 50 such institutions in unincorporated residential areas with a conditional use permit, appears set to ban any new ones, saying they can draw crowds that local infrastructure cannot handle.

Unfortunately, the county's current approach introduces problems of its own. Without the conditional-use option, for instance, organizations seeking worship or meeting sites in an essentially built-out area like DuPage County would have as an alternative only commercial areas and industrial parks - which offer their own traffic, environmental and safety problems, not to mention the religious freedom issue that pervades the debate no matter where it is taking place.

The county has a responsibility to protect the safety and atmosphere of its residential neighborhoods, of course, and DuPage planners have worked hard to address legal issues that have held up previous attempts to regulate religious and service assemblies in residential areas. Even so, their current proposal poses limits that remain so restrictive they could open the county to expensive litigation with little or no assurance of success.

Faith groups know their requests pose potential disruptions in local neighborhoods, and ought to be prepared to adopt regulations that have proved successful in other communities. But instead of a wide ban, the county could alter current conditional use language to require petitioners to pay for changes that would eliminate the problems they cause. For example, if a road in a targeted neighborhood were too narrow for parking, the permit could require the organization to pay for changes that address the problem. That seems a more reasonable, and more rights-conscious approach.

The DuPage controversy isn't about possible oppression of any religious group, and it applies to a relatively small number of potential sites. But the implications are broad, the message important. With the rancor of the times and increasing scrutiny over religious property law, the county must get it right. It has sufficient mechanisms already in place to satisfy all involved, now and in the future.