There have been some distressing decisions lately here of removals of churches for having a school on the property, even when the school is in a completely separate building. The clarification on what makes something a school to be rejected is:
These churches are not primarily focused on persons under 18 years of age, yet somehow met removal criteria? Please explain this. And update the clarification if a school existing on a property makes everything on the property ineligible.
Examples:
These recent removals go against this definition. Would staff please make this clear?
Church properties often include some sort of hall, and these are often used as nurseries. However, their primary purpose is not a nursery. These are eligible POIs in my opinion, but do sometimes get removed.
If a school is in a similar location to a chuch, the school will be distinct. Any proper school that I have seen has a fence and limited entrance/exit points and is clearly not the same place.
In a few cases, a school may have a chapel on its grounds. These would be ineligible unless it can be proven that members of the public have access which generally they won’t.
West Hills is one of 2 churches on the grounds; the other is Lincoln Glen, and the Wayspot for that one was restored.
We were able to help the OP determine in which building each church and the preschool were in, and all are in separate buildings. West Hills is southwest of the preschool building, but the Wayspot wasn’t near the preschool at all.
So yes, we need some clarification, because why would 1 church Wayspot be allowed, but another can’t be restored, even though both are in separate buildings than the preschool.
These questionable removals seem to be about churches that have school facilities. Rather than schools that have church amenities.
In the past, we were inclined to think that the larger set (the church property) can be ok while a subset (a school amenity) isn’t and will not affect the overall acceptability of the other amenities within the church property. The two decisions seem to be outliers from this trend which brings up the discussion.
Right, anything on the grounds of a school for children is ineligible.
The issue is that these are church grounds with a school placed on them.
In the past, the church has been a valid poi, but the school on its grounds is not. These decisions removed the church because there was also a school on the property.
The church is not only for children, and the church grounds are not “primarily focused for persons under 18 years of age”. Only the school itself should be ineligible.
I mean, personally, I think that if the School and the Church are connected, if you can access the Church grounds without disturbing the school in any way…
It should be eligible.
However, if the church is being used by the school OFTEN, or if the church is blocked by the school grounds for parking/front entrance etc, then it shouldn’t be eligible for the schools land being private property.
It is because these have to be analyzed so carefully, for every school/church combination, is why I feel that they should be banned.
My understanding is that once a property has a K-12 school on it, the property as a whole become invalid. I feel like I came to this understanding by a discussion on the previous forum, so may be more difficult to find.
Below are my related appeals that I could find on this forum (likely missed some). Some wayspots removed, some not. One removed and returned in the same topic.
I could probably also find a list of all of the ones I removed without needing an appeal, though would be more work.
So, if a college or university has a pre-school for children of the faculty somewhere on its premises, everything else on the entire campus becomes invalid?
What do the property lines of large plots with multiple functions have to do with Wayfarer’s efforts to identify places of interest?
If we learn that Disney World has a staff day-care facility, do all of its Wayspots get condemned?
Where are the lines drawn, and what sort of reasoning justifies this? Owners of a property can rent or lease out space piecemeal. Civic institutions can share and subdivide their holdings any which way. People can form collectives that do likewise.
