One doesn't have to be against, say, gun rights to believe that not everyone should be able to carry a gun--convicted terrorists, for example. Similarly, it doesn't make one against property rights to say that in this one case, maybe one or two property owners' rights are less important than allowing an existential threat to build a victory mosque on the sight where 3000 Americans were slaughtered. That's a LITTLE more important than building a Burger King or something.
I am with you.
But I’m not a lawyer, and I worry if it would require a certain amount of area to be declared under such a scenario, disenfranchising current property owners who just happen to be operating nearby.