The First Church of Costco

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Thursday, May 30, 2002

[TroutStalker]

The Good Book instructs us to render unto Caesar what is his. But what do you do when Caesar casts his greedy eye on your local church -- in order to replace it with a discount retailer?

This tale comes from Orange County, California, once known as Reagan Country. On Tuesday night the Cypress City Council voted 4-0 to invoke its powers of eminent domain to seize land owned by the Cottonwood Christian Center, which would then be sold to Costco. The growing non-denominational Christian church had bought the mostly vacant land in 1999 because its existing building was bursting at the seams.

[infowarrior]

But when invoked on behalf of a private business...

There's the rub. Eminent domain was created for "the public good". Costco isn't the public, but a private business. No cause for eminent domain, the council is breaking the law, and know it...

the infowarrior

[Mike-o-Matic]

Quite frankly, this makes me wanna puke. Stupid local dictators.

[jayree]

Ok, I've read about this and there is a truly fantastic organization out there to offer help to this Church. It’s the Institute for Justice and this is the type of case that they take on regularly. I would suggest that someone from that church contact the Institute for Justice to see if they’ll take on this issue. The IJ is basically the Libertarian version of the ACLU. (I shudder to even compare them to the ACLU, but you get my point). IJ = good; ACLU = evil. Here’s the IJ’s website for anyone one interested in viewing what good work they do. Institute For Justice Good luck to these folks in Orange County. (I’m not ready to tear up my Costco Card yet though)

[Revolting cat!]

Coincidentally, isn't COSTCO owned by a card carrying Communist lawyer (I know it was founded by one)?

[ClearCase_guy]

There's the rub. Eminent domain was created for "the public good". Costco isn't the public, but a private business. No cause for eminent domain, the council is breaking the law, and know it...

The actions of the council are very wrong in my opinion. Truly appalling. However, I bet they could make a case that, by selling the land to a tax-paying entity, they are serving the public good. Now they can either provide more services, or lower taxes for the public. Isn't that peachy?

My opinion is that eminent domain done for "the public good" is just like everything else done for "the public good": a very bad idea. Property Rights are property rights.

Acting for the public good is what tyrants always claim to be doing.

[Tactical Thunder]

Been a member scenic 1982 if they do this I will go to Sam's Club instead and I buy there for myself and our company of 125 employees.

[Koblenz]

Cypress's city fathers aren't bigots; they simply insist that Cottonwood's 17.9 acres are too valuable as potential tax revenue to be allowed to remain in the hands of a tax-exempt church. But the whole point of property rights is that bureaucrats don't get to pick and choose who owns what. Ditto for businesses such as Costco, which should buy their land in the open market instead of relying on local governments to seize a juicy location at below-market prices.

Fine, but as long as we want the open market to exist, we should have property taxes administered fairly, which means that churches should also pay property taxes. Because every other business has to in effect subsidize churches as churches don't pay property taxes.

[South40]

As a former city council member, I do not agree with the Cypress City Council’s decision. I do, however, understand its motives---and it has nothing to do with greed. It has everything to do with handling the daunting task of balancing the city’s budget.

As populations explode (more so in California with the run amok immigrant and/or Latino populations) balancing a city’s budget becomes an increasingly more difficult task. New and/or growing communities require new and/or expanded infrastructures. For every new community the need arises for new roads, shopping, Police and Fire protection, and the nominal maintenance that comes with them.

The fact that churches do not pay taxes can and most often does affect a council’s decision as to a church’s location(s).
Prime location property has the potential for greater tax revenues.

As I have already stated, I do not agree with this council’s decision. But I do understand its motives. And greed isn’t one of them.

One would think that the bad publicity surrounding this issue would cause Costco to abandon its proposal to purchase the property. If it doesn’t, therein lies the greed.

[Lanman]

Here is an interesting story about Costco for today

Costco Profits Up, Tops Wall Street View

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Costco Wholesale Corp. (NasdaqNM:COST - News) said on Thursday net income rose 24 percent in its last quarter, as consumers seeking value in the sluggish U.S. economy bought goods in bulk at the No. 1 U.S. warehouse chain. . .

[Boxsford]

How can a city council take away someone's property, legally? I guess I don't understand this right they have. Will the church be compensated in any way? Does the church actually own this property or is being leased to them by the city?

[Poohbah]

The city is using eminent domain. They will pay a "fair market" price for the property, then transfer it to Costco.

[Free the USA]

Index

[BibChr]

Hugh Hewitt is absolutely smoking foaming howling DEATH on this issue right now. Yesterday he got one of those hapless council members on his show, and gave him holy heck.

Dan

[South40]

I'd like to know if Costco first approached the church and made an offer. If it did, and the offer was denied, it would be extremely unethical and possibly illegal for the council to intercede. A council’s decisions are generally spirited with legal advice from the city attorney, which leads me to believe that the city is acting within its legal constraints by exercising California Government Code, Section 7260 which reads:

(a) "Public entity" includes the state, the Regents of the University of California, a county, city, city and county, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the state or any entity acting on behalf of these agencies when acquiring real property, or any interest therein, in any city or county for public use, and any person who has the authority to acquire property by eminent domain under state law.

(b) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or association.

(c) (1) "Displaced person" means both of the following:

(A) Any person who moves from real property, or who moves his or her personal property from real property, either:

(i) As a direct result of a written notice of intent to acquire, or the acquisition of, the real property, in whole or in part, for a program or project undertaken by a public entity or by any person having an agreement with, or acting on behalf of, a public entity.

The real question is: Is the aquisition of this property for public use?

[CJ Wolf]

but that will still give them victory, the government will still get your taxes just from the walmart/sams club.

[VOA]

But the whole point of property rights is that bureaucrats don't get to pick
and choose who owns what.

To All:
This topic has provided two hot evenings of discussion on The Hugh Hewitt Show
(870AM in the Los Angeles Area; other stations listed at www.hughhewitt.com; over the
internet at www.newstalk870.com; live broadcast 3-7PM Pac Time)

Hewitt is a prof. of Constitutional Law at Chapman University of Law; he and another
lawyer (from The Beckett Fund?) have had in depth discussion of this event.
One of the Cypress City Council called in last night and Hewitt let the guy have it!

I'm no lawyer...but I won't be suprised if this one ends up at the US Supreme Court some day.

[hobbes1]

Because every other business has to in effect subsidize churches as churches don't pay property taxes.

Could you be a little more bass-ackwards ?????

Every other business in reality, not in effect, as well as every other property owner SUBSIDIZES GOVERNMENT, AND IT'S INSTITUTIONS....

[Rodney King]

Personally, I think that Church's should pay property taxes just like everybody else. And I am a regular church-goer.

[moyden]

Socialist thugs.