In a move that has sparked outrage and a growing petition drive, a New Jersey township council has voted to seize a historic church property through eminent domain for redevelopment into a recreation center.

On April 30, Toms River’s council passed a narrow 4–3 vote to acquire Christ Episcopal Church’s 11-acre property, prompting a sharp public backlash led by church leaders and supported by more than 5,600 petitioners, the Christian Post reported.

The property, located in downtown Toms River, has been home to the church for more than 160 years. The township’s ordinance outlines plans to transform the land into a public space that would feature amenities such as a playground, pickleball courts, a soccer field, and a skate park.

Township faces criticism after zoning conflict

The vote came soon after church officials had been pursuing zoning permissions to establish a homeless shelter on church grounds. Some community members and church advocates say the seizure may be connected to growing opposition to the church’s homeless outreach efforts.

Attorney Michael York, writing before the council’s vote, accused township officials of acting dishonestly. In a letter to local officials, he said the council's actions suggested they were disguising an improper motive behind the eminent domain acquisition.

“They are not even trying to hide their actions,” York stated, adding that seizing the land appeared to be a pretext for other intentions rather than a genuine public need.

Petition sees rapid growth in public support

In the weeks since the ordinance was passed, a petition created by Rev. Lisa Hoffman, the church’s rector, has gained significant traction. As of Tuesday morning, the petition had surpassed 5,600 signatures.

The petition asserts that the church plays an essential role in the community through more than 20 outreach programs and ministries, focusing especially on helping the vulnerable. It also questions the use of eminent domain to interrupt religious activities.

“Please sign our petition to tell the mayor and township council that people matter more than pickleball courts. Eminent domain should never be used to control a church’s ministries,” the petition reads in part.

Mayor questions petition’s local relevance

Despite the petition’s momentum, Toms River Mayor Daniel Rodrick has dismissed its relevance. Citing location data, he claims that only a portion of the signatures are from within the Toms River area.

“If you look at the petition, it says that 60 percent of the signatures are in the 'area' of Toms River and the other 40 percent are from outside the area,” Rodrick commented, suggesting the opposition may not represent local sentiment.

He defended the council’s decision by pointing to his role as a representative of Toms River residents. “It is they whom I am representing,” he said, implying that the decision was made within the bounds of community interest.

Public hearing scheduled for ordinance debate

A public hearing on the ordinance is set for July and will use a town hall format, allowing residents and stakeholders to voice their views. A second and final council vote will follow the hearing, which could confirm or strike down the land seizure plan.

Until then, community members and church leaders are continuing their outreach to gather more support. They argue that removing the church from its historic location will disrupt essential services that many rely on throughout the region.

“Christ Church is a large and active congregation with a longstanding commitment to outreach and community support,” the petition stated. Advocates emphasize not only the church’s historical value but also its ongoing role as a cornerstone of local assistance programs.

Next steps in legal and public opposition

The petition and upcoming public hearing may not be the final chapter in this dispute. Legal experts watching the case have noted the possibility of further legal challenges, especially if religious freedom claims gain traction in court.

For now, all eyes are on how the public hearing in July will shape the final decision. Should the council uphold its original vote, it could set a precedent for future land use disputes involving religious institutions and municipal plans.

Residents on both sides of the argument are preparing to make their voices heard, as the community grapples with questions about growth, public need, and the boundaries of government power.