Posted on 06/05/2002 12:05:52 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
The scent of Dairy City has turned sour.
The city of Cypress, Calif. originally named Dairy City when it formed in 1956 condemned 18 acres belonging to Cottonwood Christian Center last week, in order to convey the land to Costco.
Cottonwood Christian Center is the spiritual home to more than 4,000 families. It bought the land in Sept. 1999. The property was then permitted for a 108,000 square foot office building, though the zoning in place did allow for church uses. The city staff told the church that it preferred retail on the site, but the church went forward with its $14 million purchase.
The city's position is blunt: It wants the tax revenue that Costco will bring.
The church will not be cowed. In January of this year, the church launched lawsuits under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. The city added insult to injury when it lowballed the church on the value of the property. Although the property was appraised at $17.9 million this spring, the city has told the church that it will be paid $14 million.
To get a glimpse of the deep, bureaucratic ethic that controls the city, ponder the "Mission Statement" and "Vision Statement" that are touted on the city's website: "The city of Cypress, in partnership with the community, will maintain and enhance a safe, attractive and sustainable environment in which to live work and play," and "The vision of the city of Cypress is to be an outstanding family-oriented community and premier business center."
My guess is that the 47,000 citizens of Cypress didn't know they had a mission or a vision. And I am certain they did not know that their city would become internationally famous as representative of hostility to faith and governmental greed.
Law professors from the left and right agreed on my radio program last week that Cypress had gone too far too far in distorting what a "public use" was, since a "public use" must accompany a condemnation. They agreed as well that if, as appears to be the case, the city had targeted a particular church, then the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause had been violated as well. We never made it to the new federal law designed to prevent such outrages. In short, the city appears to have one heck of a malpractice suit against its legal advisers when it gets walloped in the courts. Citizens who will get left holding the bill ought now to be asking to see the legal opinion analyzing the city's tactics. Again, my guess is that none was asked for, and none was volunteered.
I spent four hours fielding calls from my radio program from coast-to-coast when I discussed this seizure. A Cypress city councilman called to defend the action. When he began whining about being the victim, I let him have it. Petty tyrants complaining that they aren't understood are both offensive and mind-bogglingly obtuse.
The Wall Street Journal chastised Costco the very next day, as had hundreds and maybe thousands of e-mail defenders of religious freedom. As threats of cut-up Costco cards flowed into HQ, Costco hunkered down and produced a masterpiece of dissembling that met the classic requirement of a defense lawyer, the superstore equivalent of "It's not my dog. It didn't bite you. And besides, you kicked it first." Costco disclaimed responsibility and claimed support for the church's efforts to find a new site, but did not foreswear buying the 18 acres. "If we don't buy it, someone else will," was the bottom line. In short, the warehouse store guys are hanging tough. They want the land.
So this is why American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are fighting and dying a half-world away: To make the country safe for tin-horn councilman-bullies and avaricious super-stores not the right of a free people to join together and worship their God as they understand Him.
Perhaps the Cypress City Council and the Cypress city staff are not anti-Christian, just dense. They have talked themselves into a corner, and now find themselves on the receiving end of a large and growing wave of disgust. Legal bills will follow. So will defeat.
The first rule of holes for someone who wants to get out of one is: Stop digging.
Stop digging, Cypress and Costco. Give the church its permits and show up for a love fest when the blue-ribbon is cut.
Hugh spun up his "smart guys" (one liberal and one conservative lawyer) with the full information, including the "redevelopment plan," prior to his show, and they both indicated that Cypress was WAY out of line here.
I keep hearing about this "okay" but don't see a copy of it anywhere, I've looked. Cottonwood's site has copies of everything but that. I don't think this letter is as absolute as Cottonwood would have us believe. I find it curious that this "smoking gun" letter isn't reproduced as definite proof. Poster on the other thread who claims to have some knowledge of the situation did say the "okay" came in a letter.
We are instructed to render under Caesar what is Caesar's. In this case it appears Caesar is due an ass kicking, and God wants us to give it to him.
RD & JH2, thanks, as always, for the flags.
Can't say. Maybe the letter doesn't exist.
Yeah, taking the property puts the city in collusion with Costco. Costco should be talking to Cottonwood, not the city.
They actually responded to me - they said that if they didn't build there, someone else would... I told them that if a thief knocked down my neighbor's door, that didn't give me the right to go in and steal his stuff, even "if I don't steal it, someone else will".
I told them they have a golden opportunity to (very publicly) do the right thing, and get out of the deal. They said that my second note to them "would be referred to their executives for consideration".
There was a more recent letter written by the city to Cottonwood re: the election to pursue eminent domain proceedings. Could that be the letter that they were dicussing?
The lefty was practically frothing at the mouth about this issue, which I found absolutely amazing. He was saying "increasing sales tax revenue is NOT a public purpose by any stretch of the imagination."
REiSSSSSSSSSSSch is uglier and about as much fun. At least ReiSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSch has shown a little sense of humor at times. He may have been the most honorable one of the group of criminals that made up the Bent One's Cabinet.
The property was not zoned for retail only before Cottonwood purchased the property, as I had assumed. The Redevelopment Plan was changed with the addition of the Cypress Town Center Master Plan in 2000. This was after Cottonwood had begun efforts to develop their property under the previous zoning of a "Business Park". That zoning allowed churches subject to a CUP (which could also limit certain aspects of the building). I don't think Cottonwood was given a go ahead for a 17+ acre project. They may have been led to believe that it was possible, though.
From Cottonwoods Lawsuit-
On or about January 9, 1995, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 952 which amended the Redevelopment Plan to conform to the requirements of Assembly Bill 1290 as codified in Health & Safety Code section 33333.6 ("First Amendment"). 24. The Redevelopment Plan designates the planning for the Cottonwood Property as Business Park. Permitted uses under such a designation include: "public, semi-public land uses such as colleges and universities, churches, church schools, religious facilities." Retail as a primary use is not permitted use for the Cottonwood Property.
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT
25. In or about October 2000, Defendants informed Cottonwood and others that Defendants had directed staff to proceed with the development of a Town Center Master Plan within the geographical limits of the Redevelopment Plan. The proposed area for the Town Center Master Plan included the Cottonwood Property.
Defendants announced in a letter to Cottonwood dated October 17, 2000, that the Town Center Master Plan "will need to incorporate a tenant mix, with two or three larger anchor retailers/entertainment uses to create the necessary synergy to draw a cross-mix of consumers to shop the project along with drawing the additional quality retailers to augment the anchor tenant mix... while the exact tenant mix will be dependent upon specific marketing efforts, it is anticipated that the components of the Town Center could include the following types and scales of uses:
"Major anchor of approximately 130,000- 160,000 square feet discount warehouse-type user, which generates over $150 million in annual taxable sales . . ."
THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
26. On March 26, 2001 the City and the Agency held a joint public hearing concerning their proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Los Alamitos Race Track and Golf Course Redevelopment Project ("Second Amendment"), which would amend the Redevelopment Plan. The Second Amendment proposed to extend the Agency's eminent domain authority under the Redevelopment Plan for twelve years, amended the Land Use section of the Redevelopment Plan to provide that land uses within the Redevelopment Project Area shall be as set forth in the City's General Plan and applicable zoning ordinances, all as then existing or thereafter as amended from time to time, and made other textual changes to the Redevelopment Plan.
27. In a letter dated March 26, 2001 to Defendants from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP ("SMRH"), Cottonwood objected to the proposed Second Amendment for being premature ...
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.