Here again we see Islamic supremacists destroying a quiet, residential neighborhood. Demands for respect, tolerance and submission from the kuffar (non-Muslims) are coupled with contempt and disrespect for the kuffar. The opposition is not to the mosque per se, but to mega-structures going up on small, residential streets obliterating the quality of life and tranquility of residential living. City councils and local politicians have been co-opted, in mnay cases, bought and paid for, by the Islamic supremacist organizations behind these rabats. This is an Islamic pattern we see time and time again, in Sheepshead Bay, DuPage, Alexandria, Murfreesboro, and Temecula. And now, Bloomington.
Imam Waleed Idrees Al-Maneese and Hyder Aziz lead the 'Al Farooq Youth and Family Center' that is causing so much misery and mayhem in the Minneapolis suburb of Bloomington. Apparently they have huge plans for further expansion this Islamic Center that was once a Christian school. Look at the havoc already wreaked on this neighborhood.
VIDEO here: When open, Al-Farooq Youth & Family Center (AFYFC) will be one of the largest Islamic Community Center in the United States. Founded to better serve the needs of a rapidly growing Muslim community in the Twin Cities, over the next three years AFYFC plans to open a full-time and hourly licensed Islamic Day Care Center, an Islamic Pre-School for Toddlers, an Islamic Weekend Academy, a Fitness Center for Muslim women, a state-of-the-art Multimedia Center, a Canteen, a full-time Islamic Elementary School, a Community Conference Room and a Prayer Room inshaAllah!
It's happening in Bloomington. One neighborhood activist writes me:
The impact for me is that my home is now surrounded by constant traffic. As you saw the building is in the middle of the neighborhood. The amount of traffic allowed on R-1 property in a residential area in Bloomington is 10 trips per average home size. So I would expect to see up to 280 trips and in a 3 hour time period at AFYFC the count is 600 and then the traffic returns in the evening. The traffic has included semi's, a flatbed truck, large industrial trucks and busses including school busses, where drivers use empty busses to attend prayer. The proposed use was for a maximum of 200 people to attend prayer in a room that was stated to hold 150. A patron told me there were 800.They have had 6 large events where the usage of the park was uninviting for the neighborhood, specifically Eid where my estimate was that 5,000 people ascended upon or neighborhood. They actually had people tell residents they could not use the park parking lot, that it was a private event.When they first moved in the residents were told by patrons that they owned the park, a man from the building approached park personnel and said "you work for me" and continued with requesting a hill be mowed and more flowers planted.Ramadan was the worst. They stated in the conditional use permit that Ramadan would be from 9pm to 10pm and we found out that it was more like 10:45pm to 5am. Cars did ascend upon the place early but the majority came around 10:45pm. The traffic came and went through the night, I would estimate a trip count of 800 to 1000. The parking lots were not designed for night usage like that as the parking lot enters and exits in front of homes on Park Ave. I live on Oakland and felt the flicker through the shades. I also heard the activity through the night, car doors shutting, beeping, kids crying, children laughing and chattering, men talking. One night in particular was unbearable and I went to see what was going on, I said to myself it is like a KOA campground.I have had reports of traffic that is too fast and reckless, one car jumped a curb and almost hit two children on a bike path. I saw a man on a bike almost get hit. My son driving on Portland almost got hit by a patron that did not stop or slow down. My sisters were over one day and we heard a very large screech, and I said no one got hurt. They asked how I knew and I said I have learned to listen for a thumb. These near misses are the result of too many. If the building had the projected 78 cars stated in the conditional use permit then maybe 5 - 10 would drive incorrectly, when the number of vehicles increase to 300 then it would be more like 15-30 that drive incorrectly.Due to the patrons of the building filling up our streets with vehicles, the city recently sent out information about installing "no parking" signs on our streets. This is the cities attempt at helping the neighborhood. Installing "no parking" signs only diverts the parked cars to another neighborhood, it does not address the traffic/trip count. Installing "no parking" signs would be inconvenient to the residents because many of these homes only have one car garages with one car driveways.The owners of the building were supposed to sign a shared use agreement with the city for the parking lot and the football field before they took occupancy. That did not happen. Long story short the city is not using the football field. It is maintaining it as previously agreed at a cost to the city but the city is not using it. Since the city is off the football field it does not need to share a parking lot either. The city had first option to purchase the field, an outlot. When I asked the city why they did not purchase it the mayor responded that it did not make sense because the city gets to use it for 20 years and then an additional 10. This area is the most dense, diverse and low income and the football field was the highlight of this area. It was the best field BAA was allowed to use. I had lunch with a women who said most of her sons games are now West. That is too far for many parents and too far for friends and family to watch.The football field does not have a conditional use permit and yet the owners of the building rented it to a semi-pro football team which brought additional traffic. The city manager's response was that the traffic could not be more than the high school football games. What he did not acknowledge was that the use as proposed was already over the 280 trip count and any additional use should not be permitted.Another negative impact is the late night use of the park parking lot. All the parks in Bloomington close at 10pm and that includes all parking lots. An empty parking lot is a safety factor for us in that the residents can see into the park and call the police if we see anything, which has helped remove gangs and keep them away. When the city entered into the shared use agreement it was under the premise that the building did not operate past 10pm, the conditional use permit did not indicate a use past 10pm, AFYFC knew the park parking lot closed at 10pm and had no expectations it would be any different for them. Instead of telling AFYFC they could not use the park parking lot, the city had 2 or 3 men change the park lighting so that it would be on all night. So now the residents get car lights and park parking lot lights through the night.AFYFC does not keep their lights on, so the city is paying to light the park parking lot but they choose to turn off theirs. They also have a lot that is supposed to have lighting and the city manager's response was the city can't make them comply because the city has noncompliant lots. That is not true, the two lots he mentioned are for fields and in Bloomington fields/parks do not have to have lit parking lots.Four council members were suporting us and the mayor but after the city attorney gave fear and intimidation presentation about Ruplia we have not representation now.After I heard the city attorney's presentation about Ruplia I was curious what the city attorney said before I had first spoken back in May 2011 and it turns out she spoke about AFYFC in a closed meeting so I can't read what she told the council. I had three legal reasons why the city needed to revisit the conditional use permit and had a signed petition to present. I had two council members that said they would vote to revisit the conditional use permit and instead they acted like I was mistaken and made it all up, I was so shocked. In later council meetings the council would say in so may words that I was lying.The three legal reasons were the water problems were not addressed, the conditional use permit left out three addresses and a trip count was not calculated.