Opinion ID: 1864416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The advancement test

Text: For purposes of constitutional analysis, the question is not whether the YMCA has religious aspects, which admittedly it does, but the extent to which the religious dimension permeates the institution. In determining whether state aid advances religion in violation of the establishment clause, the test is: Aid normally may be thought to have a primary effect of advancing religion when it flows to an institution in which religion is so pervasive that a substantial portion of its functions are subsumed in the religious mission or when it funds a specifically religious activity in an otherwise substantially secular setting. Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 743, 93 S.Ct. 2868, 2874, 37 L.Ed.2d 923 (1973). Here the trial court found that the Minneapolis YMCA is not pervasively religious, that its functions are not subsumed in its religious mission. This finding is amply sustained by the evidence and is not clearly erroneous. If one looks beyond the institutional rhetoric, Hunt, 413 U.S. at 743, 93 S.Ct. at 2874, it appears that despite its name and religious roots, the YMCA operates its health and recreational center in a nonsectarian manner. Moreover, it is clear, as the trial court also found, that the LaSalle Place Project does not fund a specifically religious activity in an otherwise substantially secular setting. Because any aid would not have a primary effect of advancing religion, we need not consider whether, in fact, aid is being received. Nevertheless, it is clear to us that any aid the YMCA receives is no more than the reduced interest charges the Baptist college in Hunt was able to obtain by financing its construction with revenue bonds issued by a state-created authority. Demos suggests there may be a question of the reasonableness of the price paid for the YMCA parcel and of the YMCA investment, as well as the use of tax increment financing. The trial court, however, based on its review of the contract documents, found that no aid was given to the YMCA, and this finding is not clearly erroneous. Despite the tax increment financing arrangement, the YMCA is contracting independently with the Developer for the building of its own facilities and will pay, with its own funds, for the development of its condominium space. The YMCA and the Developer will share the hard costs of constructing the common support elements of the new building; in addition, although Demos argues that the YMCA pays no developer's fee, the YMCA does pay its share of the soft costs for design and architectural services. In other words, the YMCA is not receiving any public subsidy but is paying its own way. [5] Of course, there are advantages to the YMCA in having new quarters in a rejuvenated downtown block, just as there are advantages to the project in having a health and recreational center as an anchor. But these indirect considerations do not impose upon the neutrality required by the establishment clause. See also Minnesota Higher Educ. Facilities Auth. v. Hawk, 305 Minn. 97, 232 N.W.2d 106 (1975) (where this court, following Lemon and Hunt, upheld the constitutionality of revenue bonds issued by a state authority to finance facilities at state private colleges). Finally, Demos points to a provision in the Developer's contract with the YMCA wherein the Developer agrees not to build or lease space for others in the project for health or exercise club facilities that might compete directly for users with the YMCA   . This noncompetition clause, argues Demos, advances the purposes of the YMCA. We fail to follow appellant's argument. Of course, the noncompetition clause advances the purposes of the YMCA, i.e., its nonsectarian business purposes. Any tenant making a substantial business investment would want protection against debilitating competition from another tenant in the same block. A developer, too, prefers one thriving tenant to two struggling competitors. We take judicial notice that noncompetition agreements in commercial complexes are common. In other words, the purpose of the noncompetition clause is to advance business, not religion. If anything, the presence of the noncompetition clause supports the Agency's argument that the YMCA's presence in the block is a nonsectarian, business purpose. We conclude, as did the trial court, that the taking challenged here neither advances nor inhibits religion.