Released on = December 26, 2006, 10:05 pm

Press Release Author = Keith Gormezano

Industry = Government

Press Release Summary = The latest public agency caught in the cross-fire between
those who favor removing all displays of religion in public buildings and those who
favor allowing alleged secular displays such as Christmas trees and menorahs is the
Seattle Housing Authority (SHA). The controversy erupted after SHA allowed a
nativity scene at one of their publicly owned and managed senior buildings.


Press Release Body =
The controversy in Seattle had been building for some time. It started with the Port
of Seattle removing 14 Christmas trees after a rabbi asked them to allow him to put
up a menorah and was turned down. After much controversy, the trees were returned
but not after many anti-Jewish emails, letters, and phone calls were received by
Jewish organizations making many wonder about the consequences that befall those who
oppose putting up Christian religious scenes in these public buildings:

In a special reader point of view published in the Seattle Times (Saturday,
12/23/06, Page B7
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003491164_satrdr23.html, Keith
Gormezano (206) 789-8328 who lives in one of the 23
http://www.seattlehousing.org/housing/programs/sshp/sshp.html Seattle Senior Housing
Programbuildings owned by the City of Seattle through money raised by a 1981 bond
levy vote and managed by the http://www.seattlehousing.org/]Seattle Housing
Authority through a Housing Cooperation Agreement between the agency and the city
said that:

\"When you start putting up on public property religious symbols like a menorah
(celebrating a (KG: Jewish) religious victory and therefore inappropriate) or a
Christmas tree (celebrating the alleged birthday of the most famous Jew in the
world), you start down the slippery slope of merging church and state.
For example, in the publicly owned senior building that I live in, management has
said that it is OK, in the interest of \"equal access,\" to allow menorahs and other
cultures\' (KG: alleged) celebrations in our community room.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any other religion that would be celebrating a
holiday this time of year, so I suspect this policy is for the sole purpose of
allowing Christians to put up these kinds of \"secular but not religious\"
decorations, since they would be the only ones affected.

Every identified Jew that I know wouldn\'t put up a menorah in this public space (KG:
sorry but Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky is in the distinct minority of our community on
this issue). And every Muslim I know would be aghast [at displaying a symbol of
Islam], as there is no [holiday] equivalent.

As a result of that decision, my fellow residents have now pushed forward with more
obvious religious decorations, such as a Nativity scene or crèche on top of the
coffee table (KG: which is underneath) a beckoning Christian angel similar to images
of Christ I have seen in museums, and an angel with wings (neither angel of which is
a Jewish or Muslim symbol, by the way) on top of the so-called \"secular\" Christmas
tree (KG: whose holiday lights are either lit using public funds or my portion of my
rent that goes for the public spaces in the building).

As a result, I cannot use the community room (KG: which I pay for through my rent),
nor can I reserve it for a private Hanukkah party for my (KG: Jewish) friends,
because I know we would be offended by such religious displays.

I wonder what is next. Forced wreathes or crucifixes on everyone\'s door? A demand
that everyone put up a tree in their apartment? A requirement that we attend
Christmas or Easter dinner in order to live in this taxpayer-supported building?

That is why we shouldn\'t allow Christmas trees (why are they called that if they are
secular objects?), menorahs or any other religious object in public spaces.

Religion belongs in the home. Public buildings are for public business.\"

Gormezano, who completed two years at Seattle University Law School and has served
as an arbitrator in securities, business, and real estate cases said today that
residents who benefit from the housing authority\'s and city\'s tax exempt status have
to abide by US Supreme Court decisions which have held that a Nativity scene in a
public place is a government\'s endorsement of religion, even if it is in a publicly
owned apartment building.

\"Our rents are a minimum of $100 a month less,\" he said, \"because the building does
not pay any property taxes and the money that was raised to build the building
carries a lower interest rate than money raised to build private sector buildings
around the same time.

Unlike most public housing which requires and rewards you for being poor or
\"low-income\" (maximum of $16,350 a year for one person), residents of senior
buildings can earn up to 80% of the medium income of about $43,000 a year for one
person as long as you are over 62 or have some kind of handicapped or disability,
pay a maximum rent of $672 a month, and still live here.

So you don\'t get to double dip when it comes to the benefits of living here. You
have to take the bitter with the sweet. If it was a privately owned apartment
building, you might have a case.\"

Gormezano stated that he had filed a request with the managers of his building at
the end of November long before the crèche went up asking them not to permit the
Nativity scene again this year citing US Supreme Court decisions as well as the
agency\'s own internal rules regarding cultural sensistivity and emails which
regulated such a display in community rooms. \"It was my birthday present to myself,\"
he commented but \"it fell on deaf Roman ears\".

Fortunately, he said, \"this year the display was a bit more restrained (see
pictures) but it did contain an obviously Christian angel. Last year it was this
huge display on top of the TV (see picture).\"

Last year the Anti Defamation League (ADL) got involved after the fact and reached
an agreement with staff members of Mayor Nickels office (since the city owns the
buildings and this would be the appropriate office to get involved) that this
wouldn\'t occur again. Unfortunately, that wasn\'t the case.

After filing his request this year with the agency\'s managers and hearing nothing,
Gormezano then asked Rob Jacobs of the Anti Defamation League (ADL) [(206) 448-5349,
1] to intervene again. Jacobs was unable to reach or persuade the Mayor\'s Nickel\'s
Office this year to take action.

\"Consequently,\" he said, \"Because the Mayor\'s Office was not willing to enforce the
law or live up to their word in terms of what they had agreed to last year, I feel
that I have no choice but to go public with this complaint. And to keep it from
happening next year.\"

Gormezano said that he has contacted the Seattle Office of Civil Rights about filing
a discrimination for violating the housing cooperation agreement which prohibits
discrimination in programs by contractors such as SHA with the city and with HUD
which enforces fair housing laws. \"SHA,\" he stated, \"is well known to them.\"

\"Excluding me from being able to use the community room is a clear cut violation of
the Seattle ordinance against discrimination and the federal fair housing act.
Putting up a Nativity scene is no different than burning a cross on a
African-American person\'s lawn or painting a swastika on my door, excluding Asians
from applying or putting a cap on them for certain Ivy League colleges, demanding
that Hispanics speak English in order to obtain public services, or refusing to
recognize domestic partnerships or same sex marriages. It makes me think twice about
living here.\"

\"I sometimes wonder if my fellow residents are really doing this to make the
building \"Juden Rein\" (Jew free in German). I have had people tell me that I have no
right to complain, another Jewish resident had her \"Happy Passover\" signs torn down,
I\'ve been told that I should \"get over it\" and \"we\'re in the majority\", move to
another building, scream at me and shower me with profanity, come close to
physically assaulting me, vandalize a cartoon that I put on my apartment door,
refuse to acknowledge my presence in the halls, or receive invitations to
non-Christian events going on in the building. I also have received hate email,
unsolicited Merry Christmas cards, and notes telling me that they will pray for me.\"

\"This is why we can\'t tolerate these kinds of overt religious displays,\" he noted.
\"They are not appropriate for the Holiday season. They drive us apart and create
hostile living conditions. If this was a workplace, these kinds of displays or
behavior would not be permitted or tolerated.\"

About The Seattle Housing Authority

The Seattle Housing Authority is a public corporation governed by a seven-member
citizen commission appointed by public officials. SHA provides affordable housing to
more than 24,500 people in the City of Seattle.

SHA owns and operates 5,443 conventional public housing units that are subsidized by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, nearly 1,000 additional units
for seniors and people with disabilities as part of the Seattle Senior Housing
Program and about 800 other locally-funded housing units.

SHA also administers the federal Housing Choice Voucher program, which used to be
known as \"Section 8.\" The Housing Choice Voucher program makes it possible for
residents with low incomes to live in rental housing anywhere in the city. SHA acts
as an agent for HUD in this program, making subsidy payments to the private
landlords of Housing Choice Voucher holders. SHA, on behalf of HUD, administers up
to 8,300 Housing Choice Vouchers.

-30-

People you might want to talk to about this story and have received a copy of this
news release:

Rob Jacobs, ADL (206) 448-5349 rjacobs@adl.org
Virginia Felton, SHA spokesperson, (206) 615-3506 vfelton@seattlehousing.org
Marianne Bishsel, Mayor Nickels spokesperson, (206) 684-8878
marianne.bichsel@seattle.gov


Web Site = http://www.seattlehousing.org

Contact Details = 6561 Phinney Ave N #217
Seattle, WA 98103-5255
(206) 789-8328
(206) 350-2347 fax
bb822@scn.org email