Posted on 05/30/2002 2:36:26 PM PDT by staytrue
Officials with the Cottonwood Christian Center in Los Alamitos, Calif. are promising a court battle after the city council in nearby Cypress decided not only to squash the center's plans for a religious campus, but took a major step to seize the center's 18-acre tract of land through eminent domain for the construction of a shopping center.
"I have never seen in my years of working with local government, a city do this, what they are doing, that is processing development on a property they don't own, but also going toward this path of condemning and taking property from a church," Cottonwood spokesperson Mary Urashima said.
Jon Curtis, the lawyer for the non-denominational church, said Wednesday a legal fight would ensue in both state and federal courts.
"It's accurate to say this is another step toward condemnation," Curtis said, referring to the process in which a local government must first get a judge to condemn the land or property in question before that land can be obtained through eminent domain.
In January, Cottonwood filed a federal lawsuit against the city, claiming it was discriminating against the church and was in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The lawsuit alleges violations of the church's First Amendment rights, which guarantee that government will not abridge freedom of religion, California redevelopment laws, and the equal protection clause in the California Environmental Quality Act.
The city's decision could end a four-year effort by Cottonwood to build a new church campus, which would include a new church building, along with other structures to house classes, activities, and other community services.
In 1998, Cottonwood began assembling the 18 acres by purchasing six separate tracts of land from four different owners. In all, through tithing and donations by Cottonwood's 4,000 attendees, the church spent $13 million on the land.
While Cottonwood was gathering plans for the project and keeping the city updated, the city had its own project in the works.
"For two years, the city looked at the planning process and the conceptual plans for what the church was proposing, and said they see what they are doing, but never told them they are talking to a developer of the shopping center until they got the letters of participation," said Urashima.
The city's plans for a new shopping center include a Costco store and undoubtedly would bring in more tax money than the Cottonwood Christian Center.
"With this action they've taken, declaring we are unfit for our property, it is very clear that's their message: the issue's about tax dollars," said Cottonwood pastor Rev. Mike Wilson.
According to Wilson, Cottonwood told the city it would be willing to surrender its prime corner property and build on an adjacent property. However, on Monday, the Cypress City Council declared Cottonwood's plan "unresponsive," Costco's plan "responsive," and agreed to accept the shopping center project, Wilson said.
Wilson also alleges that the city made "a bogus offer" to the church, inviting it to participate in a retail project on the disputed property.
"We said we would participate, we will build a church. They deemed that response unresponsive," Wilson said. "What they did on Monday night is they declared we were unresponsive ... they would no longer need to speak with us, and that Costco is responsive and suitable, and they would pursue that avenue for retail on our property."
When asked if Cottonwood would be compensated for the $13 million it spent to obtain the land in question, Wilson said any offer would likely be a low-ball figure. And Wilson added that because large tracts of land in Orange County are so scarce, the property is actually worth much more than $13 million.
Wilson said there is one major problem with the city's plans. "They are wanting it for their own purposes, but they don't own it," he said. "They have not been forthright and have not dealt fairly with us."
Curtis said the action by the city "strongly brings into question whether or not the city has been acting in good faith, or if their prior discussions with Cottonwood have been for public perception purposes."
Calls made to the city of Cypress were not returned.
Costco is not gonna like nationwide bad publicity. Pickett their stores everywhere.
So9
Needless to say, the people arose (Catholics, Muslims, Baptists, Lutherans, Jewish day schools, etc.) and religious leaders joined forces to beat the ordinance back. At one point the County Executive was being quite arrogant and threatening. In the end, the people prevailed and the eco-nazis and God-haters lost. And to seal the deal, a wonderful conservative councilman offered up a new ordinance (with a referendum to the ballot if not passed) reiterating the county's obligation to NEVER restrict the free exercise of religion. The council refused to pass it so it went to a vote of the people of the county, who quickly passed it.
It takes much time and effort to stop the pompous jerks at these lower levels of government. Often, it takes much time from work, family, other civic duties, etc. of conservatives working in coalition. But, the alternative is to be stomped on, walked over, and have no voice. I'll take the former, everytime!
Thanks for your balancing comments. I knew there must be more to it than the article above.
Thanks for the balance and further insight.
The City has a General Plan that places zoning requirements on each parcel. Evidently Cottonwood forgot/neglected to petition the Planning Commission for a variance or a zoning change prior to purchasing the subject property. So it seems that their response to the city council was "non responsive" because the construction of a church on the land would not be allowed.
However the land is their property none the less. It would be wise to trade up or sell it at a profit and use the proceeds to achieve their goal elsewhere. The city will not allow the construction of a church there. That is their decision to make, though. They still own the property and no public interest should "take" the property from them.
IMO, Cottonwood and COSTCO should be talking and the city should butt out. But I have a feeling there is a little collusion angle regarding land value if the property is condemned vs. the property being sold to COSTCO on the open market. COSTCO no doubt feels the city will get the property cheaper than they could. Dangling sales tax dollars infront of elected officials so that they will do COSTCO's bidding seems to be at work here. Wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that COSTCO refuses to deal with anybody but public agencies in land acquisitions during their growth spurt. If this city won't do it, the next one will. Or so they think, unfortunetly they may be right.
Been hearing the same type thing right here on the FR by some self-proclaimed Christians. Must be a new trend with the insecure types.
Some have taken on the tactic that if you don't agree with them then you are anti-Christian. They know that this is false but they use that old trick to shout people down. The same way they call people Nazis. Must have attended JJ's seminar on shakedowns.
Large churches depend on visiable plots of land. They want a great location. A church in Denver had a similar problem. It went to court and the church won. Seems this was in 1997 or so. It was a large chruch that bought a shoping center. The city wanted sales tax revenue instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.