NJ Town Threatens to Seize Church Homeless Shelter to Build Pickleball Courts

Christ Episcopal Church in Toms River, New Jersey, says they’re not for sale. The city says otherwise.

On April 30, the Toms River town council voted 4-3 to advance an ordinance opening the door for the city to purchase the church and five other properties to build two public parks. Should the church (or any of the other properties) refuse to sell to the city, the city says they’ve authorized themselves to take the church’s 11-acre property by force via eminent domain.

Why? According to the mayor, the city needs some new pickleball courts, and the 160-year-old church is in the perfect location. 

The possible church takeover is just the latest development in a monthslong battle between city officials and Christ Church, who hoped to erect a 17-bed homeless shelter on the property. Now, some have suggested that the potential seizure is direct retaliation against the church for offering assistance to the city’s homeless community.

Helping the Homeless

Though it was the town council’s eminent domain vote which made national headlines, the fight between Christ Church and Toms River has been simmering locally for months.

Christ Church had been working with the Affordable Housing Alliance on plans to build a 17-bed homeless shelter on their property. When making their case to the city for zoning approval, they argued that Ocean County has no permanent homeless shelter, and that their shelter would help their struggling neighbors get back on their feet by feeding them, putting a roof over their head, and connecting them with mental health and job training services.

But that erupted into scores of complaints from local residents, who argued that the homeless shelter would both make the area unsafe and tank property values, a debate which has engulfed the small waterfront community.

"I don’t care if you are going to call me a NIMBY, I don’t care if you are going to call me a racist. I am not, I am a taxpayer and I just don’t think it’s fair," said one local woman, arguing the shelter would be a “magnet” for additional homeless people to come to her neighborhood.

Another resident argued that allowing Christ Church to open a shelter could open the door to other community churches helping the homeless, too. “I am adamantly opposed to this application because I see bigger than just this one issue, I see bigger than this application," explained one man. "I am concerned that this is going to open a floodgate that can't be closed."

Church and Seizure

As Christ Church sees things, there’s a direct line between their desire to open a homeless shelter and the city’s hope to convert their pews into pickleball courts. 

They say they didn’t even get any advance warning that their entire existence was being put to a vote at the town council, and they were tipped off about the vote only hours before.

Emotions were high during that initial town council meeting – and that was only a vote on whether to advance the ordinance. The final vote on the land-seizure ordinance will come later this month, just days after the town council also votes on approving or rejecting the church’s plans for a homeless shelter.

“It’s just really shocking and surprising and very disappointing,” said church rector Reverend Lisa  A. Hoffman, who argues that building a soccer field and pickleball courts are not a “legitimate reason to seize the property.”

“It is clear and obvious that the township and mayor are acting in bad faith and have ulterior motives,” wrote church attorney Michael York. “It is blatantly illegal, improper, and violates the United States Constitution, as well as numerous New Jersey laws and case law,” he stated. “No town has ever done this, let alone done it to a church and it's clearly retribution.”

The city, however, emphatically denies the vote is in any way related to the church’s desire to put up a modest homeless shelter on their property. They say the church is sitting on valuable land which could be used by the entire community.

“It's a great location,” said Toms River Mayor Dan Rodrick. “We’ve had our eye on it for some time.”

What Happens Next?

The next hearing on the church’s future is scheduled for later this month, but what do you think? The church believes that the motion to seize the church via eminent domain is both improper and illegal, a blatant retaliation against them for daring to assist the city’s homeless population. But the city says the homeless shelter has nothing to do with it, and that the new parks and all their amenities are a necessary development to build out the city’s downtown area. 

Toms River just really, really needs some new pickleball courts.

What is your response? Is the city retaliating against the church? And is it in the best interest of the community to seize the church and put up a new park?