Sure. The secular liberal church has been "seizing" owned properties via promotion of "secularism within the church" since the 1950s. In the business world, we'd call it "hostile takeovers". Hard enough to actually build "traditional churches" in blue zones, from what I've learned. Somehow the environmentalist or zoning laws prevent it. Heard about a church trying to be built with private funds, land was owned, but stalled through "citizen activist groups". The secularists in the area demanded the rights to use the church's property any time they felt like it. Ergo, this article posting seems to me, merely the next planed step by the "one worlders". Likely, probable? Yes. Church properties are in many cases, beautiful, beautiful lands.
I could see where a church in San Francisco might easily be deemed "condemned".
You may be right, but apparently this doesn't extend to mosques. In Boston (a city with already astronomical and still rising real estate prices, in case you hadn't heard), there was some noise a month or two ago about a new Muslim center in the works. The deal stinks (like so much of Mayor Menino's sweetheart deals) in that they got the land from the city at significantly below market. Nothing has actually broken yet, but I certainly hope someone's investigating.