Fascinating eruv case

[Vance R. Koven]

Eugene writes:

 >    Tenafly Eruv Ass'n, Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly, 2001 WL 897351
 >(D.N.J. Aug. 10), is a fascinating case related to eruvs; definitely
 >worth reading.

The parallel Lexis cite is 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11559.

It seems to me like the right result, though it raises a number of profound
issues concerning the legitimacy of a town's ability to prevent itself from
becoming ghettoized, among other things.

One statement that raised my eyebrow is this one, citing Pinette: "...the
accommodation of Plaintiffs' request [to use telephone poles in a municipal
right of way to put up the demarcation indicia of the eruv] would amount to
granting a sectarian religious group preferential access to governmental
property, and would violate the Establishment Clause." This despite the
court's later statement that it was not going to address Establishment
Clause issues. This, too, may be a correct result but it deserves a lot
more elaboration than it got, especially since many municipalities,
including Washington, DC, have permitted access to public property (and the
declaration of a notional "lease" of public property) to create eruvs.

*********************************************************
*Vance R. Koven                   Counselor at Law  *
*              Law Offices of Vance R. Koven           *
*20 Park Plaza, Suite 633     Boston, MA 02116 *
*tel: 617-482-3852                  fax: 617-482-4972 *
*              net: vrkoven at world.std.com               *
*********************************************************