Homeless Advocates Condemn Church Takeover Plan as “Deliberate Obstruction”

Advocates for the homeless have sharply criticized Toms River’s move to acquire Christ Episcopal Church through eminent domain, characterizing it as a thinly veiled attempt to block a much-needed shelter in Ocean County. The controversial proposal, scheduled for discussion at Wednesday’s Township Council meeting, would effectively halt plans for a 17-bed facility at the Washington Street church that has been in development for months.

The eminent domain initiative comes just weeks after the church’s representatives appeared before the Toms River zoning board seeking approval for the shelter project, which would operate through a partnership with the Affordable Housing Alliance. “This is a deliberate attempt to obstruct a solution to a growing crisis,” said housing advocate Maria Henderson. “Ocean County remains one of the few counties in New Jersey without a permanent homeless shelter, and this project represented a modest step toward addressing that gap.”

Timing Raises Questions About Motivations

The timing of the township’s acquisition proposal has sparked debate about whether preventing the shelter is the primary motivation rather than creating public recreational space. The church has been providing outreach services to the unhoused from its parish center since July 2023, with the proposed shelter representing an expansion of these existing efforts.

Township officials, including Mayor Dan Rodrick, have insisted the acquisition plans predated the shelter proposal and align with longstanding redevelopment objectives for the downtown and waterfront areas. However, critics point to Rodrick’s public statements opposing homeless services, including his previous decision to shut down local homeless encampments and expressing concerns about other homelessness initiatives in the downtown area.

Legal Experts Outline Potential Challenges

Legal experts note that while municipalities have broad eminent domain authority for public purposes, the timing and circumstances of this particular case could expose the township to legal challenges. Eminent domain requires governments to demonstrate a legitimate public purpose and provide fair compensation, but courts have sometimes scrutinized cases where alternative motivations appear to drive the acquisition.

“When a government entity moves to condemn property immediately after a controversial use is proposed, it creates a potential perception problem,” explained property rights attorney Jonathan Reynolds. “The courts generally defer to municipalities on public use determinations, but they can examine whether the stated purpose is merely pretext for preventing an otherwise legal use that officials or residents simply don’t want.”

Housing Crisis Continues to Worsen

The dispute unfolds against the backdrop of Ocean County’s worsening housing affordability crisis. According to recent housing studies, approximately one-quarter of the county’s unhoused population resides in Toms River, with many living in temporary encampments, vehicles, or precariously “couch surfing” with friends and family.

The church-based shelter would have operated from 5 p.m. to 7 a.m., providing temporary overnight accommodations along with essential services including showers, meals, and connections to permanent housing resources. Advocates emphasize that the facility would have implemented screening procedures, including denying entry to individuals visibly under the influence of substances, addressing a common community concern.

Community Divided Over Solution

The proposal has revealed deep divisions within the community. Many residents who oppose the shelter have cited concerns about safety, property values, and potential increases in loitering or disruptive behavior. Others have questioned whether a downtown location adjacent to residential neighborhoods is appropriate for such a facility.

Supporters counter that the church’s centralized location provides essential accessibility for individuals without transportation, particularly given its proximity to bus routes and other services. They argue that the modest scale of the proposed facility – just 17 beds – would have minimal community impact while providing critically needed emergency shelter, especially during winter months when exposure to elements poses life-threatening risks to the unhoused.