Save The Gurdwara
I’ll admit…when I first saw emails and facebook posts titled “Save The Gurdwara”, I immediately dismissed it, thinking it was yet another mismanaged Gurdwara falling in to bankruptcy or one group trying to overthrow another. But after I read the website and confirmed some of the details with contacts in Austin, I was shocked by what had occurred.
By now most of you know that in 2007, the city of Austin, Texas approved the building of a permanent Gurdwara on land the Sikh community had purchased back in 2003 and where they’ve since been having regular weekly services in a makeshift home. Shortly after construction began, a couple who recently moved nearby the Gurdwara (the Bollier’s), filed an injunction to block construction on the grounds that it would be an eye-sore, increase traffic, and lower property value. In March 2009, a district court denied the couple’s injunction in favor of the Austin Sikh community and construction of the Gurdwara was allowed to proceed. Unfortunately, this victory would be short-lived. Sixteen months after the original victory and construction now complete, an appeals court has overturned the lower court’s ruling and has ordered the entire structure to be torn down – needless to say, the Austin Sikh community is devastated!
As many of us would, I immediately thought this was a blatant act of racism, but as I read the website several times, I noticed there is no accusation of this being racially-motivated. I applaud the Austin sangat for taking the “high road” and not pulling the race card until there is clear evidence of racism or bigotry, but I must say…it sure does smell like it! I mean, “Lower their property’s value?”…really?
Somewhere in all the disappointment and frustration of this situation, I am still impressed with how Sikhs manage to come together in a time of need. Emails are circulating through all the networks, people are dedicating their facebook pictures and statuses to the “Save the Gurdwara” movement, and some of our talented MC’s have written songs to help rally and inspire the community.
I appreciate how the Austin Sikh community has managed to re-group and pull themselves together after this upsetting news. Rather than being reactive, or publicly lashing out – they have instead decided to step back and collect funds. It is through these funds they can assemble a professional legal team that can best represent them in what is likely to be a long and ugly court battle. This is a very proactive and strategic approach, as I’ve seen other communities in similar situations only appeal for funds once the community is bankrupt and already begun to compromise the quality of their legal effort.
In a time where “ethnopphobia” is running rampant through politics and political discourse, it very likely this case will gain media attention throughout the state of Texas, and possibly the national stage. So in this relative calm before the storm, I think we must pause and ask ourselves…what would Guru Sahib do? How would he guide us? What does Baani tell us? What examples from the Guru’s life history can we reference?
One thing that always fascinated me about the sakhis of Guru Nanak was the way in which he influenced others. He did not use physical might, but chose words instead. But even more than his words, it was the love in which he expressed them, it was his uncanny ability to relate and connect with people from all walks of life. He had a personality and a “fragrance” about him that made people want to follow.
We now have an opportunity to share the Guru’s radiance.
We have an opportunity to show the world exactly who Sikhs are and how wonderful it would be to live near such a loving, compassionate, and socially active community.
I have faith that cooler heads will prevail. Let’s not forget, it was the Texas Board of Education who recently voted to include information on Sikhs and Sikh practices in the state-mandated curriculum for public school students.
The Austin Sikh community must be assured that the 25 million Sikhs all over the world stand behind them in solidarity. That said, the financial responsibility for this case should not fall on their shoulders alone…this is our fight…and I encourage everyone reading this to make their donation at www.savegurdwara.com.
I’m sure that if we not lose sight of what this is all for, and keep the Guru as our guide – with His grace – the Sikhs of Austin will open the doors of its new Gurdwara to the public soon, and welcome the whole community with open arms to celebrate…even the Bollier’s.
24 Responses to “Save The Gurdwara”
@RP Singh
Let me know if I missed anything but I suggest doing some background research before posting an entry, which as you know many of us zealously follow and can be misled by.
In case you haven't, here is the copy of the ruling http://www.savegurudwara.com/sitebuildercontent/s…
No where it is mentioned that "Bolliers argued against the construction of the Sikh Temple on the grounds that it would be an eye-sore and a traffic magnate, and would lower their property’s value."
Now this may be the real reason behind the motivation, but a close read of the order says that the Gurudwara management – Austin Gurudwara Sahib (AGS) had violated the deed restriction in the area and they were fully aware that construction of Gurudwara was not allowed.
This would not have been allowed even in Chandigarh / Mohali (umm… maybe) what to say of TX.
Whether such a tearing down order has been given against a church or a synagogue is a different discussion but what it is to be noted that the management committee constructed the Gurudwara even while the case was in court – I think that is a dis-service to sangat who may have donated for the construction without knowing the case situation.
The court has however, not barred conduct of religious services at the location:
"The defendant (AGS) who pending the suit changes the existing condition, as by the erection of a building, does so at his own risk that the right may ultimately prove in the plaintiff. He cannot in such cases claim the advantage that the balance of injury might otherwise allow him, because he has acted with full notice of the other party’s claim."
The court has no problem in using that place as a gurudwara like it was done before the structure was put in place (which was akin to a mobile home temple)
"We note, however, that as the Bolliers (plaintiffs) challenge only the Structure Restriction, our opinion does not address the Use Restriction. Accordingly, our holding should not be construed to bar or in any other way affect the continued holding of services on the AGS lot in the existing Mobile Home Temple."
P.S. Can the authors of this blog please bring more insight to the topics rather than just aggregating news. Thank you – much appreciated.
FYI….
What you read in that absurd appeals court decision is biased almost as if Leslie Bollier is related to the judges. They censored out the shenanigans of Leslie Bollier that had been documented in the previous trial where she had been censored. (and even committed Perjury multiple times). Sangat had an option (and probably still does) to report her to the Law Ethics board where her license to practice law would be in jeopardy (but was not done so, to let bygones be bygones)
The Bolliers were asking for an injunction to construction. Construction had already been completed in a Legal manner. For them to rule for destruction went beyond even what Bollier was asking……It is clear that there was more there than met the eye.
THe Gurudwara had involved the Neighborhood Association as it existed in 2005 time frame to let them know of their plans and even let them have copies of the exterior elevations for comment. This was completely optional and NOT required by law. There were no objections at the time. The Bolliers are claiming that because not everyone in the neighborhood was FORCED to join the organization, it had no standing as an association.
The Bolliers circulated a WRITTEN letter to all people in the neighborhood making their accusations of the Gurdwara being an eyesore, traffic magnet, and would lower property values to drum up support (monetary and otherwise) prior to filing the initial lawsuit in 2008. The deed restrictions have NOT been followed in the neighborhood with multiple businesses located there (Not storefronts but production plants etc) Leslie Bollier PROMOTED one of her supporters businesses by making referalls to others about it and this was pointed out in the original trial.
The main problem is she built a $700K house with full knowledge that the rest of the neighborhood average price was $230K. She tried selling her house in 2007 when she lost her job and could not because the market had already soured and the fact that it was overbuilt. SHE wanted the Gurudwara Sahib to BUY her house to avoid the litigation. Its Blackmail plain and simple.
The Gurudwara Sahib STOPPED all construction from Jan 2008 until April 2009 when the lawsuit was filed and did not resume construction AFTER the initial verdict for Gurudwara victory. Construction resumed AFTER consultation with lawyers. The Gurudwara had all permits for 2 years when construction started. Waiting for the initial trial already used up 15 months of the permit time.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing…Please don't make comments about other SIkhs and their motivations without knowing the details….You fall prey to the same propoganda that has created a hysteria in the 9/11 world.
(And NO, in Mohali/Chandigarh if Gurudwara exists they will not be torn down)
One further comment……
When the initial Lawsuit was filed, The Sangat members decided to get an exception to the deed restrictions. Many residents were approached who were okay with signing off the exception. Once Leslie Bollier realized that people were signing off, she called the Police to the neighborhood saying that Sangat members were "terrorizing the neighborhood" She also had one of her Russian supporters Block a Sangat Member with 2 vehicles on a PUBLIC street to Intimidate them. The criminal case against the Russian supporter is going on trial this month. Most neighbors had no problems with Gurudwara causing any practical problems and were willing to sign the exemption.
To Prevent a violent incident, where someone got hurt/killed, Sangat members were asked to hold on this approach and then proceeded to fight the court case (and won).
Hence the "Unclean hands" ruling in the first case.
Law states that you cannot sue someone for something and at the same time in an illegal manner stop them from being in compliance.
@Bobby B
Thank you very much for the additional information and facts.
So are you saying that the new ruling is unlawful and will be overturned soon?
I think the motivation, and conduct of Bolliers' is irrelevant here.
"The deed restrictions have NOT been followed in the neighborhood with multiple businesses located there"
Was this the logic given for the development of gurudwara ?
The reference to Chandigarh was not about tearing down but not being allowed in the first place. Otherwise, places of worship have been torn down (and rebuilt) to make way for roads, metro stations etc.
@RP Singh
Let me know if I missed anything but I suggest doing some background research before posting an entry, which as you know many of us zealously follow and can be misled by.
In case you haven't, here is the copy of the ruling http://www.savegurudwara.com/sitebuildercontent/s…
No where it is mentioned that "Bolliers argued against the construction of the Sikh Temple on the grounds that it would be an eye-sore and a traffic magnate, and would lower their property’s value."
Now this may be the real reason behind the motivation, but a close read of the order says that the Gurudwara management – Austin Gurudwara Sahib (AGS) had violated the deed restriction in the area and they were fully aware that construction of Gurudwara was not allowed.
This would not have been allowed even in Chandigarh / Mohali (umm… maybe) what to say of TX.
Whether such a tearing down order has been given against a church or a synagogue is a different discussion but what it is to be noted that the management committee constructed the Gurudwara even while the case was in court – I think that is a dis-service to sangat who may have donated for the construction without knowing the case situation.
The court has however, not barred conduct of religious services at the location:
"The defendant (AGS) who pending the suit changes the existing condition, as by the erection of a building, does so at his own risk that the right may ultimately prove in the plaintiff. He cannot in such cases claim the advantage that the balance of injury might otherwise allow him, because he has acted with full notice of the other party’s claim."
The court has no problem in using that place as a gurudwara like it was done before the structure was put in place (which was akin to a mobile home temple)
"We note, however, that as the Bolliers (plaintiffs) challenge only the Structure Restriction, our opinion does not address the Use Restriction. Accordingly, our holding should not be construed to bar or in any other way affect the continued holding of services on the AGS lot in the existing Mobile Home Temple."
P.S. Can the authors of this blog please bring more insight to the topics rather than just aggregating news. Thank you – much appreciated.
FYI….
What you read in that absurd appeals court decision is biased almost as if Leslie Bollier is related to the judges. They censored out the shenanigans of Leslie Bollier that had been documented in the previous trial where she had been censored. (and even committed Perjury multiple times). Sangat had an option (and probably still does) to report her to the Law Ethics board where her license to practice law would be in jeopardy (but was not done so, to let bygones be bygones)
The Bolliers were asking for an injunction to construction. Construction had already been completed in a Legal manner. For them to rule for destruction went beyond even what Bollier was asking……It is clear that there was more there than met the eye.
THe Gurudwara had involved the Neighborhood Association as it existed in 2005 time frame to let them know of their plans and even let them have copies of the exterior elevations for comment. This was completely optional and NOT required by law. There were no objections at the time. The Bolliers are claiming that because not everyone in the neighborhood was FORCED to join the organization, it had no standing as an association.
The Bolliers circulated a WRITTEN letter to all people in the neighborhood making their accusations of the Gurdwara being an eyesore, traffic magnet, and would lower property values to drum up support (monetary and otherwise) prior to filing the initial lawsuit in 2008. The deed restrictions have NOT been followed in the neighborhood with multiple businesses located there (Not storefronts but production plants etc) Leslie Bollier PROMOTED one of her supporters businesses by making referalls to others about it and this was pointed out in the original trial.
The main problem is she built a $700K house with full knowledge that the rest of the neighborhood average price was $230K. She tried selling her house in 2007 when she lost her job and could not because the market had already soured and the fact that it was overbuilt. SHE wanted the Gurudwara Sahib to BUY her house to avoid the litigation. Its Blackmail plain and simple.
The Gurudwara Sahib STOPPED all construction from Jan 2008 until April 2009 when the lawsuit was filed and did not resume construction AFTER the initial verdict for Gurudwara victory. Construction resumed AFTER consultation with lawyers. The Gurudwara had all permits for 2 years when construction started. Waiting for the initial trial already used up 15 months of the permit time.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing…Please don't make comments about other SIkhs and their motivations without knowing the details….You fall prey to the same propoganda that has created a hysteria in the 9/11 world.
(And NO, in Mohali/Chandigarh if Gurudwara exists they will not be torn down)
One further comment……
When the initial Lawsuit was filed, The Sangat members decided to get an exception to the deed restrictions. Many residents were approached who were okay with signing off the exception. Once Leslie Bollier realized that people were signing off, she called the Police to the neighborhood saying that Sangat members were "terrorizing the neighborhood" She also had one of her Russian supporters Block a Sangat Member with 2 vehicles on a PUBLIC street to Intimidate them. The criminal case against the Russian supporter is going on trial this month. Most neighbors had no problems with Gurudwara causing any practical problems and were willing to sign the exemption.
To Prevent a violent incident, where someone got hurt/killed, Sangat members were asked to hold on this approach and then proceeded to fight the court case (and won).
Hence the "Unclean hands" ruling in the first case.
Law states that you cannot sue someone for something and at the same time in an illegal manner stop them from being in compliance.
@Bobby B
Thank you very much for the additional information and facts.
So are you saying that the new ruling is unlawful and will be overturned soon?
I think the motivation, and conduct of Bolliers' is irrelevant here.
"The deed restrictions have NOT been followed in the neighborhood with multiple businesses located there"
Was this the logic given for the development of gurudwara ?
The reference to Chandigarh was not about tearing down but not being allowed in the first place. Otherwise, places of worship have been torn down (and rebuilt) to make way for roads, metro stations etc.
As much as I object the fact that the newly constructed Gurdwara is now being ordered to be torn down after its construction was allowed, I think a careful reading of the appeals verdict shows that the new Gurdwara was built on a gamble (that no one would object) and on a weak legal foundation. According to the appeals court ruling on page 11:
"As noted above, the Structure Restriction states, “No building shall be erected other than single family dwellings with garage.” The evidence at trial shows that the New Temple contains numerous features at odds with characterization as a single family dwelling, including a complete lack of planned bedroom space, separate men’s and women’s restrooms, separate hand and mop sinks, and a grease trap in the kitchen. While AGS argues that the New Temple looks like a residence from the outside and asserts that “internal structures could easily be provided to convert the New Temple to a residential use,” we do not read the Structure Restriction to permit the construction of any building that could conceivably be converted into a single-family dwelling."
The new Gurdwara was built on a property that does not allow a non-residential building. The old Gurdwara building – a mobile home – was a residential one by construction and so this was not an issue. If we want to go with what is legally right, the new Gurdwara should not have been built on this land without the legal modification on the permitted use of this property.
Whether the intent of the Boillers is founded in racism or any kind of bigotry, that is hard to prove as fact. It could be the case, or not. Things that are racially motivated generally leave room for doubt. Racism is often that insidious.
Emotionally, I do not wish a Gurdwara to be torn town. However, it is the fault of the Gurdwara's management to have built this Gurdwara on land that does not permit such use. Having done so, they themselves put the Gurdwara at risk and handed potential objectors the perfect justification.
They can choose to fight this, but they may also want to consider moving the Gurdwara to land that is appropriately designated for such use.
See my comment to Isingh.
As much as I object the fact that the newly constructed Gurdwara is now being ordered to be torn down after its construction was allowed, I think a careful reading of the appeals verdict shows that the new Gurdwara was built on a gamble (that no one would object) and on a weak legal foundation. According to the appeals court ruling on page 11:
"As noted above, the Structure Restriction states, “No building shall be erected other than single family dwellings with garage.” The evidence at trial shows that the New Temple contains numerous features at odds with characterization as a single family dwelling, including a complete lack of planned bedroom space, separate men’s and women’s restrooms, separate hand and mop sinks, and a grease trap in the kitchen. While AGS argues that the New Temple looks like a residence from the outside and asserts that “internal structures could easily be provided to convert the New Temple to a residential use,” we do not read the Structure Restriction to permit the construction of any building that could conceivably be converted into a single-family dwelling."
The new Gurdwara was built on a property that does not allow a non-residential building. The old Gurdwara building – a mobile home – was a residential one by construction and so this was not an issue. If we want to go with what is legally right, the new Gurdwara should not have been built on this land without the legal modification on the permitted use of this property.
Whether the intent of the Boillers is founded in racism or any kind of bigotry, that is hard to prove as fact. It could be the case, or not. Things that are racially motivated generally leave room for doubt. Racism is often that insidious.
Emotionally, I do not wish a Gurdwara to be torn town. However, it is the fault of the Gurdwara's management to have built this Gurdwara on land that does not permit such use. Having done so, they themselves put the Gurdwara at risk and handed potential objectors the perfect justification.
They can choose to fight this, but they may also want to consider moving the Gurdwara to land that is appropriately designated for such use.
See my comment to Isingh.
There is one more thing to look at here. If the Gurudwara is built without official permission from the local authority or during a pending time frame, then most likely the Gurudwara management or people who were leading the project had no builders permits for such a building, most likely this work was done "under the table". I do not see how any legitimate building company would have accepted the project. We recently just built a Gurudwara which was in a similar environment as this one in CA. I know from experience this can not be the fault of the local government or surrounding neighbors personal views about someones religious identity, it is for a better lack of words "poor pindu workmanship", that caused this. We had a very similar situation here where the neighbors complained of a commercial building being built in a residential area.
Don't make comments/conjectures….. ALL work done on the Gurudwara was done in a professional and legal manner. Austin is one of the most strict places for construction in Texas and all permits were obtained. Planning & Zoning committees, City Council Meetings, and Neighborhood associations all saw the plans, debated, discussed in a PUBLIC forum before granting permits.
Nothing was done in a sneaky "pindu" fashion …. It was all done openly.
Obviously the initial Judge who saw the evidence realized that there was one disgruntled, racist, with a law degree running around creating a problem where none existed.
One thing to note…..Since filing of the lawsuit that Gori has been out of 3 jobs, on the verge of divorce, and bankruptcy. Thats Karma for you.
There is one more thing to look at here. If the Gurudwara is built without official permission from the local authority or during a pending time frame, then most likely the Gurudwara management or people who were leading the project had no builders permits for such a building, most likely this work was done "under the table". I do not see how any legitimate building company would have accepted the project. We recently just built a Gurudwara which was in a similar environment as this one in CA. I know from experience this can not be the fault of the local government or surrounding neighbors personal views about someones religious identity, it is for a better lack of words "poor pindu workmanship", that caused this. We had a very similar situation here where the neighbors complained of a commercial building being built in a residential area.
Don't make comments/conjectures….. ALL work done on the Gurudwara was done in a professional and legal manner. Austin is one of the most strict places for construction in Texas and all permits were obtained. Planning & Zoning committees, City Council Meetings, and Neighborhood associations all saw the plans, debated, discussed in a PUBLIC forum before granting permits.
Nothing was done in a sneaky "pindu" fashion …. It was all done openly.
Obviously the initial Judge who saw the evidence realized that there was one disgruntled, racist, with a law degree running around creating a problem where none existed.
One thing to note…..Since filing of the lawsuit that Gori has been out of 3 jobs, on the verge of divorce, and bankruptcy. Thats Karma for you.
Maybe get State Government involved? Or Obama?
In the Wall Street Journal, there is a hidously biased piece on the Texas Gurdwara issue that links it to the propsed builiding of the Islamic centre near grond zero. This kind of association is the last thing that the Sikh community needs.
Let Obama stay well away from this one!!
Maybe get State Government involved? Or Obama?
In the Wall Street Journal, there is a hidously biased piece on the Texas Gurdwara issue that links it to the propsed builiding of the Islamic centre near grond zero. This kind of association is the last thing that the Sikh community needs.
Let Obama stay well away from this one!!
Don't tear down Austin gurdwara, just get rid of this fake White trash who exploits everyone there –
http://awayfromourheritage.blogspot.com/2008/09/j…
Don’t tear down Austin gurdwara, just get rid of this fake White trash who exploits everyone there –
http://awayfromourheritage.blogspot.com/2008/09/j…