Six years ago today, April 14, 2002, OC Register senior editorial writer Steven Greenhut penned an editorial entitled “Cypress continues its unholy war.” The subject of that commentary was the pending use of police powers by the Cypress City Council to enact its power of eminent domain to take an 18 acre parcel of land purchased by the Cottonwood Christian Center for a new church and community center. On page 4 of the Commentary section of the May 19th issue of the Register is a follow up article by Rev. Mike Wilson, minister of the Cottonwood Christian Center. In that article he points our the scheme engaged by the city to thwart their use of the property.
Fast forward to the March 13, 2006 Long Beach Greens article where reads “The Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (RDA) has voted unanimously to demolish the Filipino Baptist Fellowship Church at 2155 Atlantic Ave in order to hand the property over to a private developer to build condos.” This conduct should not be taken lightly.
That can’t happen to our church! Are you sure?
John Chiang, CA State Controller, has just issued the annual report on redevelopment agencies in which he confirms that “95% of the cities with populations over 50,000 have redevelopment agencies.”
Question. How many people live in your town?
The Long Beach City Council/RDA initiated a Resolution of Necessity and fortunately through efforts of property rights protection activists and attorneys the RDA did an about face. I have a copy of an April 5, 2006 letter from Heather Mahood, Assistant City Attorney of the City of Long Beach, to John Eastman, director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, confirming that the “Long Beach Redevelopment Agency has terminated its efforts to acquire the property located at 2155 Atlantic Ave through the use of eminent domain or otherwise.” John Eastman is quoted in the April 26th, 2006 Baptist Press to comment about reaction by the church. “They’re ecstatic. They’ve got their church, they can conduct their ministry. Right now the gun of condemnation has been removed from their heads.”
Last year the CA State Legislature had several bills in the annual effort to address the issue of eminent domain takings. One Bill introduced by Assemblyman De La Torre was a proposed Constitutional Amendment known as ACA-8 that you can easily find on the web. In that Bill, amended in the Assembly on July 10, 2007, there was no protection for any house of worship. We raised that issue during the debate which led to a later Amendment on August 29th. That text reads in part: “the measure would prohibit the state and local governments from acquiring by eminent domain…… real property that is used exclusively for religious worship and is exempt from property taxes under specified provisions.”
Now fast forward to Prop 99, supported by the same power brokers who supported failed legislation ACA-8. Prop 99 does not provide any such protection. Each time I question this discrepancy they refuse to comment. They can’t. They had no intent to protect churches from their development schemes.
We need to send them a message. We are not asleep in reading their Trojan Horse alternative to the only true property rights choice. Furthermore, even if both measures are approved by the electorate, should Prop 99 have more votes than Prop 98, all of our provisions of protection, including your local church will not become law.
Let me urge you to share this story with your pastor, priest, reverend, minister or rabbi as the redevelopment agency bulldozer really doesn’t care what denomination or faith you belong to.
Vote YES Prop 98. Vote NO Prop 99
Larry Gilbert, OC Chairman, Prop 98 campaign
Are you saying that churches deserve MORE protection than any other real property owner? Are these bills dealing with eminent domain for private development or do they also include Government work projects?
Anon.8:05 am
Churches do not “deserve MORE protection than any other real property owner.” This story deals with one illustration. Further we do not oppose any valid redevelopment activity whose sole purpose is to widen a road or build a school or firehouse. Those are each valid PUBLIC uses.
Obviously we do not interfere when you have a willing buyer and a willing seller.
My next report will deal with small businesses that Prop 99 fails to protect.
To be clear. Prop 98 offers protection to ALL forms of private property. Prop 99 does not!!!!
Maybe I am dense, but if churches are being treated the SAME as all real property owners, WHY do they need special language in a bill?
anon 12:51 pm
You are not dense. Churches are not getting special language protection in the bill. When you receive your sample ballot you will notice the common language for all private property. I wrote this post specifically to point out one group we will protect with your vote supporting Prop 98.
My next story will have a similar story of how bad Prop 99 is regarding small businesses. This will be followed by another report on family farms or investment properties, all of which are protected in one common definition. You can also read the ballot measure on-line at anytime of your choosing at:
yesprop98.com
We had to be very specific so that EVERY form of property ownership is covered like a blanket. Prop 99 only offers very finite protection for owner occupied single family homes. We want there to be no question that private property is private property and is to be protected against private to private transfers by eminent domain when you do not wish to move or sell.
Hope that clarifies your question.
I’m sorry…
Did you just imply…
???
Churches have been taking from government for years; now the shoe’s on the other foot. All’s fair in god’s love and wars.
SMS
Maybe we should develop a list of churches here that truly need redevelopment from top to bottom, starting with those that are money generating enterprises disguised as religious non-profits. Might be a long list —-
SMS.
I am truly surprised and disappointed by your comments.
What you are saying is throw out the Fifth Amendment while retaining your First Amendment Rights of free speech? Do we pick and choose which Laws apply to us as well as those in power driving the bulldozer?
I will continue to blog about other examples of private property that will not be protected if Prop 99 gets more votes than Prop 98 in future reports. I only selected churches to start this series. Houses of worship are not getting any special treatment simply due to their non-profit status.
Anon 3:19 pm
Redevelopment of churches. Interesting thought. My sense is that houses of worship are in better shape and without code violations than some older neglected buildings and strip malls. As such they are not in the category of being “blighted.” Blight being the justification for taking private property when these owners have no desire to sell.
“Do we pick and choose which Laws apply to us as well as those in power driving the bulldozer?”
Yes!…. and so is you brother Larry!
In addition brother the church picks which child will be molested, and which one will be not, and which homeowner will have to forfeit his house to collectively own property tyranny.
So drop this issue of eminent domain.
Anon 8:13 pm
Aren’t you pleased that we permit you to challenge our posts without hitting the delete key.
Where does the issue of molestation enter the private property debate?
Larry-
Your new story on Prop 99 reminded me that I never got back to you here. No, I don’t think it’s really OK for the government to take churches. I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy in protecting the church from the state but not the state from the church. Devil’s advocate! [pun intended]
SMS