This kind of story repeats itself over and over again. Search for Chabad sues over property, and you will easily find story after story about Chabad going to litigation over the building of one of their ‘community centers’ or over the use of a private residence as one of their ‘Chabad houses’. And it’s certainly not unheard of for Chabad to sue their own donors and “fellow Jews” in efforts to get land or money to build their Chabad infrastructures.
Rarely (if ever) does Chabad appear to care about the local populations’ concerns whether it be zoning laws or a simple desire to preserve the scenery of a charming environment. In my experience with the organization, they are not people very considerate of others even at the individual level. And I don’t believe that consideration of the values of their local non-Jewish populations would rank very high on their priority list either. Very often, when Chabad doesn’t get their way, it is followed by cries of “anti-Semitism” and taken to court on grounds of religious freedom.
Today we have another one of those stories to add to the ever growing list.
Republican-American reports on Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County’s religious discrimination lawsuit against the Litchfield Historic District Commission.
The Historic District Commission rejected Chabad’s application on the basis that the proposed building’s size, nearly 20,000 square feet) would overwhelm the district and its character. The proposed ‘community center’ includes a 5,000-square-foot apartment for the Chabad rabbi Joseph Eisenbach, and his family, as well as a swimming pool.
As I mentioned above, Chabad doesn’t likely care about the character of an already established population’s environment. Nor does it seem interested in finding an alternative property that will satisfy the Historic District Commission’s concerns. Chabad would apparently prefer spend their time, money, and energy (and that of all involved) to fight this kind of thing in court.
A Jan. 27 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Janet C. Hall paved the way for a trial on the lawsuit Chabad Lubavitch filed in 2007, after the commission denied the Hasidic Jewish group’s plan to turn a 2,656-square-foot Victorian at 85 West St. into a nearly 20,000-square-foot synagogue and community center.
The court has yet to set a date for the trial.
…
Chabad Lubavitch’s application was rejected by the Historic District Commission on the basis that the proposed building’s size would overwhelm the district and its character. The building was to include a 5,000-square-foot apartment for Chabad’s leader, the Rev. Joseph Eisenbach, and his family, as well as a swimming pool.
The lawsuit against commission has cost the Borough of Litchfield $400,000 to date, said Lee Losee, warden of the borough’s Board of Warden and Burgesses. All of that has been covered by insurance, as will the trial, he said.
For further history of this case, see:
The Register Citizen February 21, 2012 – Chabad Lubavitch loses Litchfield discrimination case (UPDATED)
Litchfield County Times May 03, 2013 – Litchfield Panel OKs Chabad Request to Move Into Building at Heart of Legal Battle
To see the scenery that Chabad wants to rip up to build one of their ‘community centers’, simply look at these images from Google street view:
The first two images are the neighborhood while approaching the current synagogue on the right. The third image is the disputed building site.
If it were my town, I wouldn’t want Chabad to wreck the scenery either. But as I said, Chabad likely doesn’t care. They’re the “Rebbe’s Army” and act as if they have God’s stamp of approval to trample over the scenery of what established communities already call home.
One last point I’d like to make – and the Litchfield Historic District Commission should bring this to the attention of the court if applicable – is that Chabad often settles in places that Jews MUST break the Sabbath by driving in order to congregate due to long distances. It appears that may be the case here too. Are they really fighting a lawsuit on the grounds that their religious freedoms are being restricted by not allowing them to build a synagogue in a place that Jews have to transgress one of the most important laws of their religion, keeping the Sabbath? It appears as if Chabad really doesn’t care about the Jews they claim to serve either.
Chafraud-Depravitch 
I am probably not as “dialed in” on the day-to-day doings of Chabad as some of the others are but the comment about the pool caught my eye. I did a quick Google and saw a Chabad community center in Atlanta with a pool. I guess it is now “a thing” with Chabad which, of course, is fascinating.
There was a book a few years back called, “Shul with a Pool.” It was about the community center/synagogue movement in the first part of the 20th Century. Mordecai Kaplan is often associated with the phrase but the roots were with largely Reform and Conservative rabbis trying to create structures for people who weren’t particularly interested in going to a synagogue to pray.
Chabad kiruv is the same as Reform. Oh the humanity.
LikeLike
For their summer camp they enlist kosher members to use their pools and transport the children there by bus. One house for girls; one house for boys. Insurance? HA!
LikeLike
You called it right on the camp, dh.
Another article for background:
http://articles.courant.com/2010-09-07/news/hc-litchfield-synagogue-0907-20100906_1_chairwoman-wendy-kuhne-historic-district-chabad-lubavitch
“This case is not about the construction of a synagogue,” Stedronsky said last week. “It’s about the construction of a personal palace for Rabbi Eisenbach, complete with a 4,500-square-foot apartment and an indoor swimming pool big enough to serve a summer camp.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Based on the article, I have to assume pool means pool and not mikveh. Pools are a major attraction for Chabad summer/winter camps, which can represent a significant slice of profit in the Chabad “non-profit” business model. The pool is another tool for making money.
And even if the writer mistook a mikveh (which I believe Jews should have) for a pool, a mikveh doesn’t require being a part of a nearly 20,000 square foot monstrosity in someone’s grassy fields and quiet town. Chabad could find other solutions. They could show the people of Litchfield that they care about protecting and preserving the character and integrity of the District. Apparently they just don’t care to, nor feel any obligation to respect the citizens and government of the place in which they chose to settle.
Chabad’s behavior is not what I call ‘a light unto the nations.’
As a Jew, I find Chabad embarrassing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would like to see an investigation into this. It’s almost as if they have a SOP guide. Local communities go through this. Hearings in front of zoning departments are enlightening. In mine, notwithstanding a plethora of congregational lawyers, they hired a non Jew, rabbis lied, corralled a local xtian minister to bear hug for the board. Only one rabbi didn’t lie. One of the congregation threatened the community. Someone let Chabad know the hearings were recorded to document the lies and that was the end of Chabad appeals. And that someone had to get a CCTV on that someone’s home.
LikeLike
.
“It’s almost as if they have a SOP guide.”
They receive classes in fund raising before they are assigned to shlichus. I would not be surprised to learn they get instructions on how to stir up litigation too.
LikeLike
A 5,000 square foot apartment for the rabbi and his family attached to the center? He’ll be owning his own house without paying to live in it. Once again, let’s hear the rabbinical criticism demonizing the Temple Priests/Sanhedren for becoming corrupt to justify their pushing aside and stepping on the Levites and Cohen.
LikeLike
.
Essentially the donors buy him a home with a pool and a shul. That’s “tzedakah,” really?!
He may even avoid some taxes that way too, maybe property taxes. Not being a tax specialist in CT, I couldn’t say for sure.
LikeLike
So basicly we don’t know.
Really guys?
LikeLike
I need to know a lot more about this matter before I condemn Chabad. (Hope this doesn’t get me banned here.)
The “we don’t want the character changed” argument has been used before in other localities. And I know this is going to upset some people, but sometimes it really is another way of saying, “we just don’t want YOU here.”
For example, some years ago in Southampton, NY, Chabad wanted to use a house at 214 Hill Street and turn it into a shul/center/what have you. The agency charged with issuing the approvals came up with the same character/scenery/environment claims. What made them particularly bogus was that the house was located 200 feet away from a gigantic church. Take a look at Google Maps and see.
LikeLike
You could take an absolutely supportive position and not even come close to banning here.
Your point of the “we don’t want the character changed” really meaning “we just don’t want YOU here” is a good one. As far as I know now, that’s not the case. And Chabad finds itself in a lot of cases of this nature. So it seems more like par for the Chabad course from where I sit. I thought about looking for a big church too.
Perhaps they should consider a location that doesn’t have a Victorian house from the 1870’s on it. The District hasn’t said Chabad can’t build anywhere at all. They simply don’t want this property altered in the way Chabad proposes. I have yet to hear of any alternative plan submitted by Chabad. Did Chabad even consider one before running to court on religious grounds implying anti-Semitism by the District? I’d like to know that.
LikeLike
Happy I found you.
LikeLike
I’ve been on a vacation in Litchfield a few years ago. It is the quintessential beautiful New England town. Few, if any, chain stores of any kind. A huge gorgeous park with waterfalls. A lake surrounded by B&B’s and restaurants. A slice of life that rejuvenates the soul, especially for us rush rush rush city types.
Now along comes Chabad to turn it into another Brooklyn orthodox slum. Thanks but no thanks.
LikeLike
CD,
Thank you.
WSC,
Come on. Southampton hasn’t exactly turned into “another Brooklyn orthodox slum.”
LikeLike
True. Let me ‘walk back’ my previous posting a bit.
Chabad usually serves nonreligious or nonorthodox local people, like they do in my town in NJ.
The people on the Commission in Litchfield probably see the Jewland villages in NY’s Orange County and don’t make the distinction between the Satmar and New Square enclaves vs. Chabad shluchim who are coming to set up a Jewish Center.
LikeLike
By “serves”, you do mean that as in ‘sucks in’ don’t you? Or do mean for dinner?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand what you are saying but think the phrase “another Brooklyn orthodox slum” is a bit much. Which neighborhoods would you characterize as such?
LikeLike
Let’s flip this around. Chabad and other frum Jews, in Israel and in America, very aggressively and overtly take moves to keep out or kick out people, organizations, and businesses from their hoods they don’t want.
LikeLike
Examples in the USA, please?
LikeLike
In Queens for instance, a Jewish owned Internet Cafe opened. The frum rabbis didn’t want the minors (teens under 18 years old) who are by Jewish Law adults at age 12 or 13 going to a business with Web Access even though the Jewish owner separated the computers from the cafe area. Not good enough. The rabbis told him he had to close up his business. So he did. Also in Queens, a newly opened sefardic owned kosher butcher shop supervised by the Queens Vaad is being boycotted by an Ashkenazi yeshiva with long connections in the community.
LikeLike
Let me help out here guys:
We don’t know
1. Who is putting up the money for the building.
2. If there is an established Jewish community in the town already, and if so whether the building would be centrally located.
3. Are there houses of worship of comparable size in the area, and were their zoning requirements accommodated.
The Chabad hating gets tedious. I mean the haters just got to hate, hate, hate…
Let’s get off our asses and start asking some real questions. Instead of regurgitating what you heard and what you “think”.
LikeLike
What actually gets tedious are the frum sheeple who have as much integrity as a desert seller of old sick camels.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On what are you basing your questions, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or specific State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts?
LikeLike
My integrity, Hawkster? Really I thought it was the size of my schlong that facinated you the most.
LikeLike
Why would you think that?
LikeLike
Neareaster,
“The Chabad hating gets tedious. I mean the haters just got to hate, hate, hate…”
For the record, I’m not driven by hatred. I have even recently attended a Chabad event where I was quite happy to see a few of my old friends.
However, I am not some naive Chabad customer anymore looking at the rabbi like he’s someone who holds some kind of ancient wisdom, answers to my life’s problems, or vast amounts of Torah knowledge. I know him for what he is, a hack, a self-serving, money making, dynasty-building machine, and a saturated alcoholic.
At that same event, I saw a guy who reminded me very much of myself many years ago with a starry-eyed look at an almost teenage appearing “rabbi” putting tefillin on him. I know who the guy is, and for a few warm-fuzzy feelings of being accepted by ‘the men in black’ he’s willing to foolishly throw money to Chabad that will only line the rabbi’s pocket and pay for many bottles of Smirnoff. The guy is dressing similar to Chabad now even though he’s a complete ignoramus of Jewish learning, married to a non-Jew, and oblivious of any reasons to question the Chabad organization and this shliach in particular. He’s in for a world of hurt after he’s bilked of his donor potential and finds out he’s really not good enough for Lubavitch.
If I’m driven by anything, it’s to provide a warning sign that Chabad is not all that it sells itself to be. And that includes alerting people to all of the bullshit they tell their customers and donors, examples of poor behavior that many secular Jews wouldn’t engage in, and many of the things that Chabad keeps under wraps for fear of losing business (and there’s a lot).
And if you find the stream of stories about Chabad’s lack of integrity, criminal activity, and all around piss-poor midot tedious, join the club. So do I. But that’s no reason to stop exposing something that I feel too often sets up Jewish seekers for a very deep pitfall.
LikeLiked by 2 people
CD, you get an A+ for that one.
LikeLike
Whenever I read the Chabad apologists throw out labels such as “haters”, it is obvious what they are doing. Just like the political Left, the frummies resort to attacking using hater. Other terms the Left uses are: bigot, racist (those against illegal aliens), homophobe (those critical of the gay lifestyle), sexist pig (those critical of feminist behavior), etc. Hater is also used to attempt to silence anyone critical of those same named categories.
Those who use such names to attempt to silence others are against Freedom of Speech and expression. It is that sort of silent world the frum rabbis want to dominate.
LikeLike
You have no clue as to whom the First Amendment applies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not an attorney so enlighten me. I believe the 1A and the Bill of Rights (they were I understand intended as individual rights not group, community, organization, or state rights) were officially intended to limit the powers of the federal government. Unofficially, I used the common popular concept to express how using a label ie hater is intended and used to put on the defense and silence those of an opposite political stance. In modern politically correct America, no one wants to be labelled a bigot, hater, sexist, homophobe etc.
LikeLike
“…bigot, hater, sexist, homophobe…”
If someone uses those words against you as part of a counterargument, you still retain your right of free speech. Such accusations are an easy and cheap rhetorical trick to try to win an argument and have the last word, but it certainly doesn’t take away your right to answer.
The ball is then in your court to present a factual and compelling reply in order to sway your opponent, or any listeners. You can also clarify whatever statements lead to such accusations, if perhaps you were misunderstood.
That is free speech, in my opinion. The answer to insulting or ill-advised speech is better and smarter speech. If you don’t know how to respond to an accusation, then you need to improve your debating skills. Think ahead to what your opponent may say, and be ready with your reply.
Read history books in order to have a bank of information on how to reply during a debate. Profiles in Courage is my favorite. The writings of Churchill, JFK, HL Mencken, and Oscar Wilde are always good for a clever retort. Look at articles on websites arguing today’s issues. Make sure to read websites that discuss different sides of an argument, not just the side you agree with.
Nothing is better than education and preparation.
Keep in mind that those of us over a certain age grew up in a time when broad-brush comments about blacks, gays, Jews, etc. were- for better or for worse- not considered a big deal. It is good to think carefully about what we sound like with such comments nowadays.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WSC, Nice post. Good information.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of my favorite Mencken quotations:
“There is always an easy solution to every human problem–neat, plausible, and wrong.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can understand one of today’s ongoing dilemmas regarding political correctness.
If a person in a position of public scrutiny, such as a teacher, cop, fireman, or TV/radio personality says something controversial on the air, or on social media, they could be fired, no matter what explanations or apologies they subsequently offer.
Employers just don’t want to have to deal with the controversy, the complaints, or the aggravation, no matter who you are. Eg. Bob Grant, Don Imus, etc.
It’s basic business. I don’t want my customers to be upset. If you’re causing unnecessary stink about some issue, I don’t need it. You’re fired. Is it fair? Maybe not. But it’s business.
LikeLike
WSC,
The exception to the PC rule playback is if the PC violator is a member of a historically discriminated against minority group ie women, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays, illegal aliens, etc. Then the violator usually gets a sweeping pass to continue their behavior. Interestingly, Jews who are a historically discriminated group are increasingly running out of free passes while the discriminatory spotlights are increasingly focusing on Jewish behavior. Thus the great pendulum continues its movements.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well then, I suppose we Jews have made it, in a sense.
I do think that the vast majority of anti-Jewish anti-Israel invective these days is of the Arab/Moslem kind, at least the type of anti-semitism that worries me as far as our personal safety and Israel’s security are concerned.
There are still some smoldering remnants of old school white trash antisemitism, and the Farrakhan fan club, but neither of those has any real traction in the USA.
LikeLike