Replies

Cottonwood bought that property full-well knowing it was not zoned for a church.

Thanks for your balancing comments. I knew there must be more to it than the article above.

Cottonwood bought that property full-well knowing it was not zoned for a church. They have been underhanded, combatant and quite frankly I'm ashamed of the way they have conducted themselves in our community. In my opinion they have brought shame to the name of Christ. The City has been very fair with them, offered them a sweetheart deal to trade parcels, but that never seems to hit the press. Let me assure you that this article does not paint a complete picture.

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.

Cottonwood bought that property full-well knowing it was not zoned for a church.

Actually, that's not true at all. According to the letter sent by the City of Cypress to Cottonwood Church, although the city preferred a retail space, they included a list of "acceptable uses for the property."

ON THIS LIST WAS THE BUILDING OF A CHURCH.

I suggest you do your research on this. That is in the documentation.

Cottonwood did do their due diligence on whether the site was suitable for a church--the city of Cypress changed the rules after the property was bought.

I would be interested in knowing who sold the land to Cottonwood, and whether that person was buddy-buddy with the city.