The Tower Theatre Sale

Dan Waterhouse

Barring a less than one in five chance being successful, the iconic Tower Theatre—the symbol of the Tower District—will become Adventure Church.

Superior Court judge Rosemary McGuire ruled March 18th that the sale could proceed after Sequoia Brewery argued it had not been informed of it in violation of their lease. The brewery said their lease contained a clause saying they had first right of refusal. The judge agreed they had a first right but that in fact they had been extended a timely offer.

​

The judge also decided the equities favored allowing the sale to proceed. The offer to the brewery requires its part of the land to be split off from the rest of the property. The City of Fresno has to approve the parcel split in a process that could take, worst case, years to complete. She said it was uncertain whether at the end of the day the City would approve the land division—there is no requirement it has to. In the meantime, if the sale was held up, the church would likely back out.

​

Escrow was expected to be completed by the end of March. Sequoia Brewery’s lawyers filed an appeal of McGuire’s decision on the last Friday in March.

​

There’s an allegation floating out on the internet that Judge McGuire is a member of Adventure Church’s congregation. If true (I’ve seen no proof), she should have recused herself from the case.

​

Opponents claim the transformation will destroy the economic vitality of the area by adversely affecting property values. They point out it would be difficult if not impossible for nearby bars and clubs to either renew or sell their liquor licenses, citing distance requirements.

I did a little investigating. Turns out those distancing rules are made by the City of Fresno, not the State of California.

​

The state Alcoholic Beverage Control Act contains no provision mandating denial because a licensee is within a certain distance of a church. It turns out the state leaves the nitpicking regulation of liquor establishments to the cities and counties. As a part of Fresno’s alcohol conditional use permit process, the city council established distancing rules.

​

Those rules can be changed in a heartbeat by the same city council. That would solve that problem very neatly.

​

My pointing that out on a Tower District Facebook page attracted the ire of several “keeping the Tower weird” supporters.

​

The church says it has no intention of seeking a rezoning. It claims the City said, before the neighborhood got upset, one wasn’t required, church services will be merely an “incidental use,” and, in any event, federal law preempts Fresno’s zoning ordinances and the Tower District specific plan.

​

The jurisprudence surrounding the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is clear as mud, but the law says local land use planning rules can not unduly burden the practice of religion. Some cities have won in court. Others haven’t.

​

It appears Adventure Church plans to play a game of chicken with the City. If the church opens for services without a rezoning in place, that puts the ball squarely in the City’s court. Would the City then take legal action against the church to close the building? If it did, assuredly the church would then sue the City in federal court.

​

A lawsuit could ultimately move the survival of the specific plan into the political realm. Oh, I’m sure the City would vigorously defend itself in court if a lawsuit was filed. However, if a ruling went against the City, would the city council then vote to throw in the towel and allow the church to operate sans normal land use approvals?

​

My assessment of the sale opponents’ current strategy is that it sucks. Their strategy was initially very sound—they mobilized the area’s elected officials, got city officials involved, and sought visible support from area residents and those who love the Tower District. They also got the news media to cover the story.

​

That’s the game plan I used to defeat an ill-advised apartment building proposal near Fresno State several years ago. That strategy led to a unanimous vote of the city’s planning commission to deny the project.

​

The street theatre that’s currently in play is what sucks. One wins land use planning battles in front of the planning commission and the city council, or in court, not on the street.

​

I know the Tower supporters think I don’t know what I’m talking about when I describe the longstanding neighborhood rift that—surprise—has surfaced again. Unfortunately, I do. A significant percentage of area residents will welcome the church being on Olive. Why? Because they detest the ‘weird’ reputation the Tower has and want the bars, night clubs, homeless, mentally ill, and the LGBTQ+ community gone.

​