JOHN L. **HILL** AttorneyGeneral 

# The Attorney General 

# of Texas
December 1, 1978

Honorable Mike Westergren County Attorney Nueces County Courthouse Corpus Christi, Texas 78461 Opinion No. Ii- 1267 Re: Whether a religious statue can be erected on city property in Corpus Christi. Dear Mr. Westergren: YOU have asked our opinion Onthe **fOUOwing** question: [Is it] constitutionally permissible for the City of Corpus Christi to allow use of apublic area in the bay front for the erection of a statue of Christ at no expense to the city either for installation or majntenance in commemoration of the discovery of Corpus Christi Bay by dePineda in year 1519without violating either the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or article I,sections 6and 7of the Texas Constitution regarding freedom of worship and appropriations for sectarian purposes?
you inform us that a group of private citizens approached the city council and tendered the gift of an 16-foot bronze statue of Christ to commemorate the naming of Corpus Christi Bay. The original proposal was to present the sculpture to the city at no cost ifthe city would provide a site, a twelve-foot base and maintenance. Substantial controversy and public discussion concerning the separation of church and state ensued, and the proposal was amended. The Prospective donors indicated that they would form a nonprofit corporation to provide funds for the statue’s instatlation, base and maintenance and would lease or purchase the site from the city for the statue’s location. Under this proposal the city would have no connection with the statue other than selling or leasing Iand which would be used for the statue. Apparently, the only appropriate sites for the statue are now owned bythecity.

**Most** questions of this sortrequire adetermination of whether a secular purpose is served by installation and **maintenance** of the statue. See AUenv. Morton, 495 F.2d 65(D.C. Cir. 1972)(government participation inxgeant of

p. 5016Honorable Mike Westergren - Page 2 (R-1267)

Peace in apublic park inWashington at which acreche wasapart isnot necessarily unconstitutional); State ex rel. Singelmann v. Morrison, 57So.2d 238 (Le. Ct. App. 1952) (statue of a Roman Catholic saint on public property upheld): Meyer v. Oklahoma Cit + 496P.2d 769(Okla.), cert. denied, 409U.S.980(1972)(50-foot high cross at angrounds did not violate Oklahoma Constitution because of the secular environment in which it was erected); Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 558P.2d 338(Ore. 1976),cert. denied, 434U.S.876(1977)(50-foot cross on city prcperty served a secular purpose since it was dedicated and maintained as a war memorial); Lowe v. City of Eugene, 463P.2d 360(Ore. 1969),cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1042(1970)(prior to passage of city charter provision designating cross es a war memorial, the cross was found to be a religious symbol which could not be maintained by the city); Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp., 475F.2d 29(10th Cir.). cert. denied, 414 U.S. 879 (1973) (erection of a monolith containing the Ten Commandments near the entrance of the citv/countv courthouse found to be _~ . constitutional). In this instance, however, there is to beno expenditure of public funds or public sponsorship. The extent of the city’s involvement will be to sell or lease a parcel of land to aprivate corporation. After purchasing theland, the corporation will erect and maintain the statue. Assuming that all relevant statutes concerning the disposition of land are observed, there is noconstitutional problem in selling or leasing public property to an individual even ifhe later uses the land for religious purposes. 1Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law, g 4.13(1969). See Fenske v. Coddington, 57So.2d 452(Fla. 1952)(the gift to the state ofanindustxl school did not pose an establishment of a religion problem when the donor retained ownership of a chaoel located in one of the school buildinas and maintained the chapel privately); cf. Paul v. Dade County, 202So.2d 833 @la. Dist. Ct. App. 1967),cert. denied, 39Ou.S. 1041(1968)(a temporary string oflights inthe shape ofacross put on the side of a countv courthouse at no oublic exbense to encourage Christmas shopping did not amount to an establishment of religion). Weceut~n, however, that no specific lease has been presented to us, end we donot pass on whether a particular lease might not present entanglement problems. See generally Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971);Levitt v. Committee for Public Education end Religious Liberty, 413U.S.472(1973). Accordingly, under the facts as you have presented them, i&, that the city will sell orlease land to a private individual or corporation which will subsequently erect a religious statue, there is no violation of the constitutional guarantees against establishment ofreligion. SUMMARY

A city may sell or lease land to an individual even though the individual may subsequently intend to use the land for religious purposes.

p. 5017,

*

I Honorable MikeWestergren - Page 3 (H-1267)

APPROVED:

DAVIDM.KENDALL, First Assistant

Opinion Committee

p. 5018