| Churches gain edge over cities:
Judge's strongly worded ruling stops Cypress from exercising eminent
domain
August 7, 2002 By Paige Austin and Jim Hinch The Orange County Register 625 N. Grand Ave. at the Santa Ana (5) Freeway Santa Ana, California 92701 Toll Free: 877-469-7344 To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@ocregister.com (200-word limit) Cypress, California - City officials and church advocates said a judge's ruling Tuesday against the city of Cypress' attempt to condemn church land to make way for a Costco tilts a nationwide land-use debate between churches and cities decidedly in the churches' favor. Experts said Judge David O. Carter's 36-page ruling granting Cottonwood Christian Center a temporary injunction against the city's eminent domain action sends cities a message that churches enjoy special protection from local planning laws. "There are two major powers at work here: the power of the state by the Constitution to protect the interest of the greater public good, versus religious freedom," said Steve Young, an Irvine lawyer with experience in land-use cases. The ruling "bodes ill for governments in general" because it signals that once a church owns a piece of land in a city, officials lose the constitutional authority to guide development of that land for the public good, said Bill Wynder, Cypress city attorney. Wynder said that because Carter's judgment so strongly tilts toward the church's side at the expense of a city's planning authority, the judge "is just incorrect on the law." Church advocates said Carter's ruling gives a high-profile boost to the controversial Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a 2000 law that restricts cities' ability to block church building projects. Several cities have challenged the law. But Cypress' attempt to block Cottonwood's worship center has attracted so much attention because it is the most clear-cut, aggressive violation of a church's rights, said Patrick Korten of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "There is strong evidence that (Cypress') actions are not neutral, but instead specifically aimed at discriminating against Cottonwood's religious uses," Carter said in his ruling. "The framers of the Constitution ... might be surprised to learn that the power of eminent domain was being used to turn the property over to a private discount retail corporation." The ruling implies that using eminent domain against a church is different from other condemnation proceedings, because if a church has to close down, the city has violated its constitutional right to freely exercise religion, said Young. Carter is saying that eminent domain can become "a mechanism for putting a church out of existence," said Young. "In writing his opinion like this, he's putting himself on the line." |