How This One South Blooming Grove Law Violates The First Amendment

Not only is there a 14th Amendment case to be made by Village residents, but they also might have a 1st Amendment case as well.

While investigating the Village of South Blooming Grove, I didn’t want this story to slip through the cracks: Local Law 1 of 2021. This resolution violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

For those who need a refresher, the 1st Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [Emphasis Added]

In Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that the Establishment Clause, the lines I bolded above, is applicable to local governing bodies.

So, it’s misleading for people to suggest that the 1st Amendment’s language about religion only applies to Congress. The 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause also applies to governing bodies like the Village of South Blooming Grove.

Background

Local Law 1 of 2021 is a zoning change that allowed residents of South Blooming Grove to open synagogues or convert parts of their homes into prayer spaces.

If this sounds familiar, it’s due to the fact that the Village of Monroe was threatened by Attorney General Letitia James in the Fall of 2023 for examining a similar, but far more specific law.

The Village of Monroe law, passed in 2024, allows for people to change their home into a house of worship, but they have to go before the Village Planning Board first. It also did not explicitly call out one religion over another.

Whereas the South Blooming Grove law was vague about the process of turning your home into a place of worship, allowing virtually anyone to make the claim and have it approved.

And of course, if approved, giving the property owner a future pathway for receiving additional tax exemptions.

Unlike the Monroe law, the South Blooming Grove law is also explicitly geared toward Haredi in the Satmar community, referring to synagogues in Yiddhish as “schul” and also using the Yiddish term “Shtiebel.”

The latter of which is used almost exclusively in some Haredi communities to refer to a place of worship within the home.

There is no other way to interpret the use of Yiddish other than the implication that the law was meant to be explicitly preferential to the Satmar and other members of the Haredi community.

And that violates the 1st Amendment.

Where was AG Letitia James on that one?

But now we’re getting ahead of ourselves …

After the law passed in the Village of Monroe without incident, AG James said nothing, meaning her threat was basically a PR stunt.

Something that she’s done in the past, as pointed out in former Southern District of New York Prosecutor Elie Hong’s Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away With It:

“The investigation of the Trump Organization by New York prosecutors—primarily former Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance, who initiated the criminal inquiry in 2019, and New York attorney general Letitia James, who joined forces with Vance in 2021—was deeply flawed. Together, New York state prosecutors put on a public clinic on how not to run a fair and effective criminal investigation. James overtly politicized the investigation from the start by running for office and fundraising on an explicit campaign platform that she’d pursue Trump and anything around him. Both James and Vance stoked the public’s appetite for justice and reveled in the resulting attention. They made bold pronouncements, in court and in the media, about the seriousness of the investigation, even as they dragged the matter out over an inexplicably long period of time.”

I mention the Attorney General here because she’s been completely invisible when it comes to the alleged criminal conspiracy in South Blooming Grove.

So, it would be inaccurate for her office to state that she’s unaware of the situation in South Blooming Grove, given her interest in the Village of Monroe’s law in 2023. Months after the DEC issued a massive fine against the Clovewood development.

James had also interjected herself on behalf of a Haredi developer in Chester who was claiming anti-semitism. So, it’s pretty clear she works for hanhallah and not all the people equally, Haredi and non-Haredi alike.

Moving on …

Local Law 1 of 2021 was passed, unanimously, by Mayor George Kalaj and the Village Board on July 29th, 2021. Not long after the Village Board was taken over through a sustained, and potentially illegal, write-in campaign organized by Mayor Kalaj’s Confidential Assistant, Joel M. Stern, and Mayor Kalaj’s Legislative Assistant, Isaac Ekstein aka Yitzchok R. Ekstein.

At the same meeting where Local Law 1 of 2021 was adopted, both Ekstein and Stern were each rewarded with annual salaries of $15,600. That might not sound like a lot of money, until you consider the annual pay for a Board member in the Town of Monroe, much larger than the Village of South Blooming Grove, is $17,000.

There is a second provision in Local Law 1 of 2021 that we need to cover here.

Other changes included in this law allowed for doubling the footprint of homes in the Village and allowing for high density housing — See: Clovewood — As long as the developer includes affordable housing.

So, let’s look at things in reverse order, starting with the promise of affordable housing.

When Affordable Housing Is Anything But

As you all know, I’m a big advocate for affordable housing. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again often: We need to build affordable, high density housing in an environmentally friendly fashion, preferably with the coordination of all the municipal governments in Orange County. Maybe even using a municipal housing model like they’ve done successfully in Vienna.

This way, we can pick a spot that works for everyone to build, and minimize that building’s impact on the environment everyone moves up here to enjoy.

Of course, I’d prefer we not have to build anything at all, but that’s not a choice we have due to climate migration, to say nothing of America’s ongoing housing crisis.

So, What’s Wrong with Local Law 1 of 2021?

The thing is, there’s no enforcement mechanism mentioned in Local Law 1 of 2021 to ensure that any development actually includes the promised affordable housing upon completion.

A common tactic in real estate — especially in the New York City area — is to promise affordable housing in exchange for getting more generous zoning, and then not deliver on the affordable housing once the buildings are complete. At that point, the people behind the project take the attitude of, “What are you going to do, knock it down?”

There’s also no mechanism in this law to ensure that these homes are built for everyone, and not specifically designed and built only for members of the Haredi community.

Back in 2000, Raun Rasmussen, then an attorney with South Brooklyn Legal Services, filed a lawsuit arguing that it is a violation of the Fair Housing Act to build housing and only market it to one group of people by, for example, only advertising the availability of the apartments in Yiddish language media outlets such as Der Yid or Vos Iz Neias.

As detailed in the book, A Fortress In Brooklyn:

Over the years, Hasidim had effectively created a parallel rental market within Williamsburg. They did so by renting apartments via word of mouth or advertisements in Yiddish-language publications and, especially when new construction was involved, as in New Williamsburg, by adding features such as kosher-friendly kitchens, a balcony for a sukkah, and multiple bedrooms. These features not only were designed specifically for Hasidic needs, but also discouraged non-Hasidic renters. [Emphasis Added]

Also discussed in the book was a way to finance new development that would also act as a barrier to exclude non-Haredi residents:

In the first scenario, they secured all the financing before beginning construction, from banks or private investors, who sometimes had what he called “old money” inherited from the diamond trade. In the other scenario, Hasidic developers consulted with brokers to pre-sell as many units as they could up front, typically at least 40 percent of the projected total. Once the building was finished, often by Hasidic-owned construction firms, developers then turned the building over to brokers, often Israelis or other non-Hasidic Jews, to sell or rent the remaining units.

One possible reason that the Clovewood developers are ignoring the DEC is because they’ve already sold some of the units. That’s something worth investigating by authorities.

But it’s not just non-Haredi who could be discriminated against with this new housing:

One of the practices that became a bone of contention in Williamsburg was shlisl gelt, or “key money,” a sum that renters were expected to pay to landlords when they moved into an apartment to help with its ongoing maintenance. In return, tenants who paid shlisl gelt were supposed to receive a form of eviction protection, perhaps for their lifetime. With roots in eastern Europe, shlisl gelt was practiced in Hasidic communities around the world.

Yet not everyone was happy with the arrangement, as one Williamsburg Hasid explained to us: “Landlords used to ask for a bulk sum just for the right of leasing a decent apartment. They would claim it’s for money they put in, such as a new kitchen, a fresh coat of paint, etc. But really, it was just a way of bilking the tenant.” market. Some landlords, he wrote, had the chutzpah to ask tenants for more shlisl gelt after two to three years of renting: Now, to all the developers who are building new apartments: are the costs of construction higher in Williamsburg than in other neighborhoods? No! But the people know that you “must” raise money because there is a large demand here. Then you can make a hundred thousand dollars of profit on every apartment. Why not! But what would happen if you made a little less profit, and people who need apartments would be happy and a little healthier. All of these things cause heart attacks, nervous breakdowns, and other things.

A.N. noted that some landlords asked for more than the legally allowable rent in rent-controlled apartments: “Even after the mortgage was paid, he wanted more pocket money from it! Why do people have to do this? Is it Jewish? Do people no longer have any feeling for a fellow Jew? I get red talking about it. . . . How can a Jew sleep well in a luxury apartment when it is financed by a pure tenant who tortures himself to make a living? . . . to live in luksus [luxury] while profiting off of another man’s sweat and blood!” A.N.’s solution to the situation in Williamsburg would have been welcomed by rent-burdened New Yorkers well beyond the Yiddish readership of Der Yid: “We need to work to build apartments for ‘middle- and low-income’ earners. It’s high time people should be protesting against the ethical breach of ripping someone off.” A.N. concluded by exhorting “those who have the right connections” within the Hasidic community to work to solve the problem, for, he stressed, “it is truly a mitzvah of pikuach nefesh,” or a Halakhic matter of life or death.

Favoring One Religion Over Another

Listen. I know the Supreme Court is doing its best to destroy the Establishment Clause, but if we’re making decisions based off the intention of the framers of the constitution, they were adamant about the government not favoring one religion over another.

Until the passage of Local Law 1 of 2021, the Zoning Code of South Blooming Grove only mentions “church” four times. And all four times where it does, it’s listed as “Church or Other Place of Worship.”

Could it just have said “House of Worship”? Yeah. Absolutely.

It should. But it doesn’t.

No where in the code is any other religion or house of worship mentioned or specifically called out.

Local Law 1 of 2021 changes this. First by expanding the definition of House of Worship to explicitly include: “A church, mosque, synagogue, or other place of worship.”

Orange County pointed out to the village that the lack of definition makes these three categories provided overly broad.

But then …

The law also adds new language that explicitly calls out schuls and shtibels.

Here, Local Law 1 of 2021 is also incredibly vague, as it only offers broad guidelines about what does, and what doesn’t factor, into the South Blooming Grove Village’s decision to grant a permit for someone to convert their home into a Shitebel or Schul.

This is where we get into the Establishment Clause, because what exists here are …

1. Explicit instructions …

2. Given by a local village government …

3. Permitting special, although admittably vague, procedures for converting a home into shitebels and schuls specifically.

The Orange County Planning Department expressed concern about the vagueness of these proposed rule changes as well.

However, their concerns were ignored as Local Law 1 of 2021 was passed unanimously. A unanimous vote was required to override the concerns of Orange County.

As explained in The Times-Herald Record:

County planners had told the board to expand the proposal to define in greater detail the three categories of houses of worship, limit each to appropriate zoning districts, and spell out the conditions they must meet for approval.

Future Problems

Another issue that grew out of Local Law 1 of 2021 are the sirens that now go off every Friday evening in South Blooming Grove, alerting Satmar in the Haredi community to the beginning of the Sabbath.

I was on the phone recently with a South Blooming Grove resident, and the siren can be heard loudly blaring into their home. Loud enough where I had to take my ear away from my phone so as not to trigger a migraine.

Since at least 2010, the national media has covered stories involving the Adhan (also known as the call to prayer) within the Muslim community and the unintentional conflict it sometimes causes with other residents of a town or city due to the noise caused by it throughout the day.

These skirmishes caused by the Adhan are so frequent that there’s a Wikipedia page detailing them.

In New York City, Mayor Adams recently said that no permit was needed for Mosques to broadcast the Adhan, much in the same way no permit is needed for church bells in the city.

However, in South Blooming Grove, there is a noise ordinance. And it’s hard to say how “unintentional” the conflict caused by these sirens are. Residents allege that the siren volume is intentional to force them out of the neighborhood.

The South Blooming Grove noise ordinance does not govern how much noise a house of worship can make, only stating that there are noise limits around churches and schools prohibiting noise that would interfere with their operations.

But.

The Noise Ordinance clearly lays out that noises between 8am and 10pm can’t exceed 90 dBA. (And nothing louder than 75 dBA from 10pm to 8am.) Anything louder than that is a violation of the ordinance.

And there are penalties, one of which involves the potential for jail time.

Now, since we started out talking about the Establishment clause, we’ll wrap things by discussing it again.

Is the use of the sirens for a call to prayer in the Satmar Haredi community protected by the first amendment? Yes.

But.

According to the CDC, people are harmfully impacted by sound once it reaches 70 dBA. Once you hit 80-85 dBA, that’s when you can start damaging your hearing.

At 110 dBA, hearing loss is possible when exposed to sound at that level in less than two minutes.

So the question with the sirens becomes:

Does the first amendment right to have the siren infringe on the right of its neighbors not to be physically harmed?

After all, while the Constitution was pretty explicit about not wanting to endorse one religion over another; the Declaration of Independence argues that all Americans are guaranteed the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

It’s hard to pursue all three when you can’t hear anything.