The Imaginary Grandma, the Real Mosque, and the Law That Keeps Religion Equal

What a fake neighbor in Oyster Bay reveals about how discrimination hides in zoning codes

Thanks for reading! Please share, subscribe, like, and comment. It really helps.

In Oyster Bay, New York, an elderly woman worried about parking became a central character in a local controversy. According to town officials, she had spoken out against a proposed mosque in Bethpage, voicing fears about traffic and neighborhood disruption. Her supposed concerns helped shape a new town ordinance that required more parking for religious buildings, effectively blocking the project. But this week, the town admitted she never existed.

As reported by the New York Post on July 31, 2025, Oyster Bay has now conceded that the elderly neighbor cited in public hearings and internal discussions was entirely fictional. She was invented, apparently to justify a zoning change that disproportionately burdened Muslims on Long Island, Inc. (MOLI), the group behind the mosque. What might seem like a strange anecdote is, in fact, a case study in how religious freedom can be undermined – not with overt hostility, but through the machinery of local government.

This is where the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, becomes critical. Passed in 2000, the law bars local governments from treating religious institutions more harshly than comparable nonreligious ones when it comes to land use. It applies to all faiths and has been invoked in cases involving churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques. In April, the Department of Justice filed a formal Statement of Interest in MOLI’s favor, arguing that Oyster Bay’s actions violate RLUIPA by holding religious buildings to stricter parking standards than theaters, museums, or libraries.

The details are not subtle. In 2018, MOLI submitted its plan for a 16,000-square-foot mosque and provided 86 parking spaces which was enough under the code at the time. That rule required one parking space per three seats or per 100 square feet of assembly space. But in 2022, as the application was being processed, the town amended the law to require one space per three occupants based on the building’s total capacity. That change pushed the required number of spaces to 155, making the project physically unworkable on MOLI’s property.

At the same time, other public buildings such as museums and libraries kept their less demanding standards. A secular building of the same size would have required only 53 parking spaces. The town offered little explanation for why religious buildings needed to meet a more burdensome requirement. Instead, it leaned on a supposedly concerned local resident, the elderly woman, who it now admits was not real.

The use of that fictional character is more than a procedural irregularity. It directly affects the town’s legal position. As the Department of Justice points out, if a religious group can show it has been treated unequally, the burden shifts to the government to explain why. That explanation must be based on real, nondiscriminatory reasons—not invented anecdotes.

That may be where this case leaves its strongest legal mark. In local politics, it is not uncommon for zoning rules to be adjusted in response to neighborhood concerns. But those concerns must be genuine. When they are manufactured, and when they disproportionately harm a religious group, they cross the line into illegality. A court does not need to find hateful intent to find a violation of federal law. It only needs to find that the rules were not applied equally.

This is not just about one mosque in Bethpage. The same patterns appear across the country. A city council might impose unique parking rules, fire safety limits, or hours of operation on religious groups while allowing secular groups to operate freely. These tactics rarely make headlines. They are quieter than protests and subtler than rhetoric. But they are no less effective in blocking religious practice.

That is exactly why RLUIPA exists. Courts have repeatedly ruled that a town cannot approve a theater or museum and then deny a mosque using the same zoning language. Equal protection means equal treatment under the same rules. Oyster Bay’s new ordinance fails that test.

The town tried to compare religious use to bars and nightclubs, which also have strict parking standards. But that comparison collapses under scrutiny. Bars and dance halls operate primarily at night, serve alcohol, and are built for full-capacity gatherings. A mosque, like most places of worship, does not fit that profile. The better comparisons are theaters, libraries, and museums—all of which continue to enjoy more lenient standards in Oyster Bay.

The courts will decide what happens next. MOLI has asked for a preliminary injunction, which could allow the mosque project to move forward while the lawsuit proceeds. The Department of Justice’s position, combined with the town’s startling admission, may carry weight in the judge’s ruling. A decision is expected in the coming months.

What this case shows is not just a misuse of local government power. It is a reminder that in American law, the right to worship cannot depend on who shouts the loudest at a zoning meeting—or whether a helpful neighbor ever existed at all.

Tags: Oyster Bay mosque zoning, religious land use discrimination, RLUIPA enforcement, Long Island mosque controversy, fabricated testimony zoning case

Department of Justice Statement of Interest (filed 4/11/2025)