This Colorado Church Wants To Shelter the Homeless. The Town Won't Let It.
The Church of the Rock is suing, arguing that the zoning crackdown in Castle Rock violates the First Amendment.

A federal judge last week ruled that a Colorado church can continue offering temporary shelter to homeless people after the town of Castle Rock leveraged its zoning code to put a stop to the charity program.
In May, the Church of the Rock filed a lawsuit against the town, asserting that the town's prohibition of the shelter program violates both the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The decision, handed down by Judge Daniel D. Domenico of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, concluded that the church would "suffer irreparable harm" and that their claim against Castle Rock "has a strong likelihood of success." The ruling will allow them to continue offering shelter during the duration of the suit.
Since 2018, the Church of the Rock has provided "RVs and/or trailers parked on its property" for homeless people to stay in, according to the church's complaint. A spokesperson for First Liberty Institute, which is representing the church, estimated that the church aided "a couple dozen" people "at the most" throughout the course of the program, "given the limited space offered by the trailers."
The church's neighbors, like many local governments, contend that a homeless shelter near their residences presents a risk to their safety and that the town's zoning requirements should be respected. Earlier this year, a pastor in northwest Ohio was criminally charged for violating zoning regulations in the city of Bryan by sheltering people in his church. The Ohio church filed a similar lawsuit against the local government, also on First Amendment grounds.
"In Proverbs, it says your neighbors should dwell securely next to you, well, we don't feel secure now," one neighbor of the Church of the Rock, Tim DeVries, told CBS News last month. "What about my freedom? What about the respect for our zoning laws?"
"This is not what this neighborhood is about," DeVries continued. "I mean, who wants a homeless camp behind your community?"
A spokesperson for the First Liberty Institute tells Reason that the church "temporarily suspended its ministry in the Fall of 2023" after Castle Rock "began taking enforcement actions against the Church." In September 2022, the town sent the church a letter maintaining that parking RVs on church grounds "for either storage or use to live in" is not permitted "under the current zoning."
The church's attorneys contend that the homeless shelter has not harmed the community in any substantial way and that Castle Rock should allow the program to remain in place for the benefit of the town's homeless population. "It's obviously something that is harming no one," said attorney Jeremy Dys, senior counsel for the First Liberty Institute. "It's on the back of the property. It is helping everyone."
"I just don't quite understand why the city has been so bent on preventing this church from doing the right thing," Dys added. "They should be supporting the church rather than trying to stop their ministry."
Under the RLUPIA, governments cannot impose a "substantial burden" on religious exercise unless the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering said interest. The church asserts that its homeless ministry is part of its religious obligation and that the town does not have a compelling interest in shutting it down.
To be successful, the church's Free Exercise claim will have to withstand the government's rejoinder under Employment Division v. Smith, the 1990 Supreme Court case which held that laws are not unconstitutional on Free Exercise grounds if they are "facially neutral and generally applied."
In its lawsuit, the church argues that Smith's general applicability requirement is not satisfied by the town's zoning restrictions and also contemplates Smith being "partially overrule[d]," potentially intending to bait the Supreme Court to eventually accept the case on appeal.
A spokesperson for Castle Rock tells Reason that "the Town has retained defense counsel to rigorously defend the zoning authority of communities." The Church of the Rock could not be reached for comment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Was this written by Stephen King?
The kid did a good job stylistically, on the article. I think that is what you meant. I agree, good writing style.
At least a dozen Stephen King books were set in a town called Castle Rock.
Castle Rock, Maine. You could be a character in a Stephen King novel. The vicious, weak minded drunk who ends up being a deranged henchman for the villain. Like Trashcan Man from The Stand. But less idiot savant, and more garden variety idiot.
"I mean, who wants a homeless camp behind your community?"
Nobody does.
So what. The homeless come FROM your community. There is a huge difference between attracting the homeless to your community and your community taking care of its own homeless rather than pushing them onto some other community.
Churches are exactly the sort of group who 'libertarians' want to be enabled to take care of local welfare/charity. But when it comes down to it - they prefer that govt use coercion to kill off any volunteer association that might solve a local problem.
Why can this church allow people to live in RV's on their property but if I want to live in an RV on my property while they redo, say, the kitchen I get a code violation?
Something about equal application of the law. Weird you didn't notice that in the article, but then perhaps you didn't read it.
Also, the homeless people in Castle Rock are not 'from' Castle Rock. At best they are 'from' one of the huge permanent homeless encampments in Denver. I may not philosophically agree with the notion of relocating the homeless away from the town, but one thing I certainly don't agree with is deciding churches have extra-super rights above those enjoyed by the average citizen.
Also, just for the record, the lowest price you're going to pay for a starter home in Castle Rock is past half a million dollars and the lowest rent you're likely to find is over 2 grand a month so there is exactly no chance these homeless people will ever graduate to having anywhere to live in this town. The dole is literally the best they could possibly hope for, and the town council is well aware of that fact.
Also, the homeless people in Castle Rock are not ‘from’ Castle Rock. At best they are ‘from’ one of the huge permanent homeless encampments in Denver.
That is bullshit. The suburbs and the exurbs (not small towns or rural areas or cities) are the major source of people who get pushed out to somewhere else when those people don't 'fit in'. And in large part because those places are bedroom/commuter places - with real job a long commute away and local shit retail jobs that can only support a teenager living at home. The postWW2 suburb/exurb was DESIGNED as a place where everyone would be the same and in the same stage in life. Those were the places that led to the die-off of the older civic/benevolent associations (like the Masons and such) because the people who moved there didn't bring any of that with them. The first manifestation of 'bowling alone'. It's not just the oldest joke about suburbia - or an old song like Pleasant Valley Sunday.
Apparently even the churches turned into more anti-charity megaevangelicals than the much more traditional love thy neighbor congregation. Or maybe the neighbors simply prefer the former church and prefer to kill off the latter. The homeless are simply what happens when times change and differences develop in a town. Whether the origin is someone gets some mental health or drug problem that affects their job/work ability - or families break apart - or the kid turns into the schools shooter - or whatever. Push them out.
That photo above shows TWO campers and a bathroom. Not some exodus from Denver. The objection is simply the thought of that being anywhere in eyesight of Castle Rock. Because that doesn't fit what was deemed as in the range of what is acceptable. THAT is why CR pushes them out of CR - and is why they end up in Denver.
C'mon JFree. Jesus didn't say "feed the poor". Jesus said to kick the bums off welfare and banish them from town. You can't expect these good Christians to go against their faith that they read from their Trump Bibles.
Sorry but you're just full of shit on this one.
One camper, two campers, a hundred campers, it doesn't really matter since as I pointed out you get a code enforcement on one camper on your own property here.
Unless you are a church, in which case apparently zoning law does not apply to you. Only if you're an officially sanctioned church of the United States though, weird little cults get burned down and shot. True story.
One of the things that zoning has not infrequently been used for has been to zone out synagogues. In communities that have churches. Can't have those JOOs taking over the neighborhood.
" The postWW2 suburb/exurb was DESIGNED as a place where everyone would be the same"
And indeed many excluded anyone who wasn't White.
Also, just for the record, the lowest price you’re going to pay for a starter home in Castle Rock is past half a million dollars and the lowest rent you’re likely to find is over 2 grand a month so there is exactly no chance these homeless people will ever graduate to having anywhere to live in this town.
So – how much do retail jobs pay? Or jobs at the supermarket? Or the car wash? Or local construction? Or any job at the hospital cafeteria? Or the nursing home? Or the school? Or any job that requires nothing beyond a HS diploma? They all gonna require a long commute (and the costs associated with that) – with no higher pay than other towns pay for that shit job? Or only hire teens who live at home?
So fucking what.
I have paid my own way, pretty much my whole life. And even when I started earning above average salaries, I found out--wait for it--I could not afford to live anywhere I wanted.
So I did what we used to call responsible people did, and evaluate trade-offs, give up some things I wanted, and rent or buy housing to get some other desired attributes and stay in my budget. Several times in my life, that included long commutes.
At no time did I, or my friends and family, assume that just because I wanted to live somewhere, I had any sort of human right that could supersede economics. And, to be honest, I resent people who think that way--and their advocates.
You're the one advocating zoning restrictions - while pretending that a community doesn't exist. It's total bullshit and is precisely why your economic philosophy is shit.
It doesn't matter if one advocates for the restrictions or if they don't argue for them, the fact is they exist and this church thinks they don't apply to them.
Sure, abolish the restrictions if you want but (and this is key) the residents of Castle Rock want it that way. Special carves outs for government sanctioned churches is not libertarian either, so I don't have a clue who you think you're arguing with. Certainly not any actual libertarian ideal.
I will say one thing, I notice you don't give a flying fuck about zoning or land use restrictions when it comes to huge cities like Denver. Weird.
I’m not a fan of carveouts for churches. Or zoning. And especially not using govt to enforce zoning restrictions for people who are receiving govt subsidies for their house prices and mortgages and such.
I despise zoning here in Denver. Most of the city is R1 zoned.
Here in my neighborhood (much of it R1 but it was overlaid on an old 'streetcar suburb' so there's some grandfathering of the pre-zoning stuff), I am trying to fight zoning by introducing neighbors to the idea of what a 15 minute city can do right here. My neighbors understand what having different stuff within walking distance means. And what de-emphasizing traffic would mean. But that's because this is a city and 'walking' is not a bad thing and cars using the local streets as rat runs is a very bad thing.
Out in the suburbs - and on these comments - a 15 min city is like communist or something. So the zoning/land use argument is petty.
Just look at that photo above. Miles and miles of emptiness so clearly on some edge of town. If that church is anywhere near the actual Castle Rock, then no one can likely even see those campers.
And you are self-righteously obsessing about some bullshit zoning code violation - that you kind of admit is intended to force the poors out of town (and therefore into Denver)? And you think Denver causes any of this? Seriously FU.
"the residents of Castle Rock want it that way"
Yeah I grew up in a neighborhood where people signed petitions to keep Jews out.
"you don’t give a flying fuck about zoning or land use restrictions when it comes to huge cities like Denver"
I am one of the YIMBYs who has been trying to relax zoning restrictions all over New York City.
Community or commune? If you claim people have rights to stuff regardless of whether they can fund their own desires then YOU are full of shit.
And BTW - even in the days of legitimate slavery, those who didn't pay enough for their workforce to meet minimum needs - provided housing itself. That is the same dynamic where WalMart no longer has to pay real wage because it relies on its employees receiving welfare from govt. It is how all rural economies and subsistence economies functioned since the beginning of time. And 'company towns'. Suburban (meaning bedroom community) economics is the same thing except in their case they are foisting the problem on surrounding communities and pretending that they are whatever the fuck you are pretending to advocate.
So – how much do retail jobs pay?
Actually in Castle Rock? About $20-$25 an hour or roughly 41k a year at a grocery. With benefits.
Last I saw, an entry level McDonalds worker still in high school makes about $17.50+ an hour so still over 35k a year assuming full time.
And yes, I do know a few people in their early 20's that make that work and still manage to rent an apartment and maintain their vehicles and/or buy used vehicles in Castle Rock. It's not unlivable, especially for someone with literally no work experience or education.
Just understand my point here. Those sorts of jobs are the ones that ultimately add up to a potential housing problem. That problem is not originating from Denver. It is originating from Castle Rock.
Again, so fucking what. If people need to live elsewhere in order to get by on entry level salaries, that is there choice.
And I get the sense that in your communal brain, the fact that economics don't fit your socialist scheme, then Castle Rock is the source of the problem, even if the people come from greater Denver.
Fuck off.
So what.
Fuck off, slaver.
This breed of libertarians that BYODB represents, they are primarily opposed to the welfare state not because of where the money comes from, but because of where the money goes. The worst part is that those immoral undeserving wretches get any money at all.
Nowhere in that story does it say the homeless the church are housing come from the surrounding area. I suspect a bunch just dropped in and I'd also like to see how many are illegals considering Biden is flying them all over the country and dropping them off in the dead of night
None of the current wave of migrants are illegals. They are asylum applicants with legal visas. This is the single most common lie from MAGA.
Nope. Not in Spokane. You democrats sent your homeless from cities like Seattle and Portland several years ago. They paid to stick them on buses and send them here. Now we have a huge homeless problem and a $50 million budget deficit. Made worse by our New Democrat mayor and democrat city council.
There’s nothing you and your fellow travelers can’t make worse.
No these homeless people probably come from Denver which is right next to Castle Rock and has thousands of homeless drug addicts.
Hypocritical progressives and MAGAt NIMBYs agree on a lot and that is one reason why Trump has a surprising amount of support from the Left. They both want to zone out the, er, uh, people they don't want in their neighborhood.
"This is not what this neighborhood is about," DeVries continued. "I mean, who wants a homeless camp behind your community?"
As someone who has had a homeless camp behind my community, I can tell you that no, you do not.
Even the homeless don't like the homeless living near them.
FYI, I'm trying to know what "a bubbler, or a pipe" is. If anyone can provide any insight, it would be appreciated. It surely can't be a "bong" because I'm quite sure the media would have said "bong" and wouldn't be trying to provide any narrative deflection.
Probably not relevant and I haven't heard it in years, but that's what people in the great lakes region called water fountains
It's kinda like a bong pipe hybrid. A pipe with a reservoir of water beneath the bowl.
I think these new bong contraptions are also called bubblers and those are not easily explained. Multi chamber advanced bong, i guess.
https://springhillrecovery.com/stimulants/meth/paraphernalia/pipe/
Meth pipe, I guess.
When was the last time the media said "bong"? That's so... 80s.
I dunno, and I admit I don't keep up with the lingo all the kids use. All I know is that my local media was VERY quick to reassure us that 2nd hand Fentanyl smoke is 100% safe, unlike cigarette smoke, so when it comes to drug narratives, I don't know what to think.
A bubbler could have been something he was using in his fish tank.
A bubbler is a smaller (portable) bong/water pipe.
Pothead tracerv.
Bongs typically have removable downstems, whereas Bubblers are usually made with filtration attached to them.
I'm tired of the churches in our area enabling the disruptive/destructive homeless population that keeps growing thanks to their efforts. As inhumane as it sounds, a lot of them would be better off letting Darwin sort them out than a constant "hand of God"
Who are the politicians running Castle Rock CO, and who is the town attorney? It does not surprise me to see CO government hostility to religion, given recent past (e.g. Masterpiece). It is sad to see.
The Governor of Colorado is a gay Jew who is close to his cousin who is an orthodox rabbi. No evidence that he hates religion.
Hilariously, you can't park RV's to live in anywhere in Castle Rock except...this one church.
Also importing the homeless population of Denver, which is quite significant, to a tiny town full of rich people just south of Denver is not going to go over very well. And before you ask, Castle Rock is a Republican deep red town in one of the few remaining red counties in Colorado so this is pretty par for the course around here.
The town often 'relocates' homeless people back to Denver since Castle Rock absolutely doesn't want to house them here. While I respect this church for practicing what they preach, perhaps they should relocate to Denver if they want to minister to the homeless. There are few homeless people in Castle Rock, and that is absolutely by design.
The zoning laws in Castle Rock ensure that I can't have a few chickens, even as pets, and yes that actually happened. So to be really honest I don't have much sympathy for this church. I can't have a few chickens, they can't have a few homeless people living in RV's.
I can’t have a few chickens, they can’t have a few homeless people living in RV’s.
"Because the government is screwing me over, I am going to make sure the government screws everyone else over too!"
Let the homeless live there. Fine and dandy.
The church will be liable for ALL issues the homeless at their location cause others. Damages, litter, etc --- that church must deal with it.
That seems fair.
Also importing the homeless population of Denver, which is quite significant, to a tiny town full of rich people just south of Denver is not going to go over very well.
The the best way to do it. Shoving or relegating homeless camps in the poor, working-class neighborhoods didn't do jack shit to fix homelessness, but like immigration, you send that shit to where the rich white folks live and suddenly it's a problem.
The best way to do what, exactly? With immigration it certainly makes the non-border states feel the same pain border states deal with, but with the homeless I'm unclear on what the goal would be. Certainly not to house them, so it must be something else...
The best way to do what, exactly?
To address the issue. When crime is relegated to working class neighborhoods, small, low-cost service businesses etc., then homelessness is merely an issue of vague compassion and funding services-- who cares how many homeless tents, rapes, murders, break-ins, property damage occurs. But when the windows on the LuluLemon get smashed, when a homeless camp appears on your kids' select-soccer league field, when your garage gets broken into 16 times, then the problem is addressed not just funded.
Denver should buy more RVs and send them to Castle Rock.
"Stop doing the right thing by helping people in my back yard ! ", cried the rich folk.
'Only enforce zoning on the plebes, not our church!', said Church of the Rock.
Notably, the rich people in Castle Rock follow the zoning laws (as stupid as they might be). Weird that the Church thinks they are immune from the laws the rest of us are required to follow.
I guess being one of the officially recognized and established churches of the United States has made them think they are above all laws, not just a few of them.
You democrats like sending the homeless you create in your cities to my town. This is ruining my town. That makes you my enemy.
Now fuck off.
I've got a little bit of sympathy for homeless people who are temporarily knocked off their feet. But for those who make it a lifestyle, who make hundreds of dollars of tax-free cash a day working a sign, who feed off the generosity of those who mistakenly believe they're giving them a hand up? Nothing but contempt. Fuck them.
You really do hate yourself.
The church is obviously wrong here. Those homeless people are just going to bring a bunch of cannibalism to the town. I know this because Trump told me so, they are all Hannibal Lecter's just waiting for a good meal.
Oh and spare me the "equal protection of the law" bullshit in this case. That is just a weak rationalization, because churches and religious organizations get special treatment already due to claims of religious liberty.
Churches and other houses of worship don't have to pay (most) taxes.
Churches and other houses of worship get to discriminate on the basis of religion.
Churches, and other houses of worship, along with private companies run by religious people, get to evade parts of the law that offends their religious sensibilities.
Christians routinely claim religious objections to doing things that their employers ask them to do, such as to validate gay marriages, talk about abortions, or use transgender pronouns.
And you know what? THAT'S FINE. Every person should have the liberty of conscience to object to what they believe violates their deeply held conscientious views. And normally the Team Red crowd would agree with this.
But in THIS case, suddenly, the church is wrong for demanding a special exemption on the basis of religious liberty. Oh, huh. Sure sounds like special pleading instead. You just don't want the filthy dirty homeless bums around.
Man you are a tiresome blowhard who seems incapable of making a point.
Let’s load your place up with homeless illegals. Bet it hits a nerve when you waddle to the kitchen and find them eating your 55 gallon drum of Ben & Jerry’s.
"Libertarians": We want to end the welfare state! The government shouldn't be giving welfare to homeless bums!"
Churches: Okay, we will take care of the homeless instead.
"Libertarians": No! We don't want you taking care of the homeless! They are smelly and dirty and I have to look at them!
Everyone else: Oh, so you don't want the government to take care of the homeless and you don't want churches to do it either, guess you just want them to die...
"Libertarians": No! That's just a horrible slander! We just want to end the welfare state!
This "Libertarian" position is not libertarianism, properly understood, it is just self-absorbed narcissism.
So, if I want to open a hog/poultry farm on my property? No neighbors have any real place to complain?
I wouldn't want the illegals either as it is the taxpayers that will have to support them. Deport all of them
they're citizens
Says that nowhere in the story. Why are you saying that?
Any kind of homeless shelter is highly likely to produce negative externalities for its neighbors. It'd be pleasant to believe that the homeless are people who're down on their luck through no fault of their own, and who're eager to become productive members of society and repay it for the support it's given them during their hard times. But any kind of prolonged contact with actual homeless people tends to dissipate that belief rather quickly. Those of us who've lived in the neighborhoods that they frequent are all too familiar with human feces and empty malt-liquor bottles in our yards, and tools and bicycles vanishing from our porches and sheds.
So, given that there're undeniably such negative externalities, shouldn't Church Of The Rock and its ilk try to compensate the people who suffer from those externalities? For a few thousand bucks a year, a resident might be willing to put up with a homeless shelter in the neighborhood. Such a course—freely negotiated payments, rather than a blanket ban on shelters on the one hand, and unrestricted license to operate shelters on the other, would seem to be the approach that economists and libertarians would favor.
The Church of the Rock doesn't have those kinds of resources. Instead they homeless will be camping out on the front yards of the residents who don't want the shelters and will be stealing food in order to avoid starvation.
The Church of the Rock understands that as a society we have obligations towards those unable to take care of themselves. Ayn Rand style selfishness was atheistic because she was triggered by this (and by the fact that religion also teaches that you should not just be able to f*** anyone you want any time you feel like it). There is a Jewish teaching that the idea what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours was actually the attitude of Sodomites.
The day Martha's Vineyard opens multiple homeless/immigrant camps is the day I will again listen to any more progressive bullshit about housing equity.
Yes we know. The issue is not about principles or liberty, it is about resentment and revenge.
Well deserved resentment and revenge – for continuing to be selfish and greedy and helping to conquer the USA with their leftardedness.
One thing that is obvious about the leftard mentality is their selfish and greed has no boundaries (land-boundaries too haha). While trespassing they're so self-entitled they actually think they 'own' the place just for squatting on it.
Gosh chemjeff; If someone came along and robbed you at gun-point and got away with it you don’t suppose there would be any resentment or revenge on your part? Heck; Why don’t all the illegal immigrants have to pay us natives? After all; they have no right to this nation because they have no investment in it.
Jeffy doesn’t accept that because the concepts of sovereign borders and citizenship are anathema to him. He’s as horrified by them as a vampire is when confronted with a crucifix.
If the neighbors didn't want a church with RV's around the corner might I suggest they should've setup a HOA contract ... OR ... came up with the money to buy the property they want CONTROL over.
I don't know about the rest but I'm getting pretty d*mn sick of 'Guns' getting into absolutely everything especially private property. Grinding away through time practically everything that establishes property rights.
Oh boo hoo; You don't have enough money to buy 300-acres you want control of - that's no excuse to wield taxpayer 'Guns' into your service and control that property without paying for it.
A federal judge last week ruled that a Colorado church can continue offering temporary shelter to homeless people after the town of Castle Rock leveraged its zoning code to put a stop to the charity program.
That’s some funny shit right there, “temporary”.
This town has the right idea. As soon as the free shit flows, including “shelter”, that’s when the hordes are going to show up, despite the “couple dozen” or whatever bullshit this article claims. Once they’re embedded, your town’s fucked.
There’s no nice solution for the homeless crisis that deep blue shitholes like Denver have encouraged. And maybe the only solution is the somewhat libertarian one: cut off the free shit, and enforce vagrancy laws to to protect the rights of property owners and businesses.
Ya know like to 'protect the rights of property owners' like the church owner? Or does one have to run a non-religious business in order to get their property rights protected?
The rights of some local church to operate a half-assed homeless trailer park are absolutely secondary to the rights of local businesses and homeowners to not live in filth.
The church's neighbors, like many local governments, contend that a homeless shelter near their residences presents a risk to their safety and that the town's zoning requirements should be respected
The church’s neighbors are right.
So your belief is that the 'neighbors' who don't 'own' the property what-so-ever get the right to dictate how to operate the property.
Don't pretend your opinion has anything to do with upholding "property *owners* rights" because it doesn't.
My next door neighbor has a henhouse. He got sent a rooster rather than a hen by mistake. Some other neighbor ratted him out to the city because NYC allows hens but not roosters in residential areas.
It was none of the neighbor's damn business and while it makes sense to ban dangerous animals (like the tiger that was living in a Manhattan apartment) hens and roosters are harmless!
Wanna be just like SF? Pay the bums to show up in your town.
There's a reason feeding pigeons is prohibited.