[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.

[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?

[steve-b]

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.

Piffle. I'd bet you against 100-1 odds they could balance the budget if they'd just cut some perks and pork. They'd rather not, because of -- all together now -- greed.

[Zon]

As a former city council member, I do not agree with the Cypress City Council’s decision...

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.

Question, who is going to initiate force to obtain the property, Costco or the Cypress City government? Greed is not a violation of any person's rights or private-property rights. Also, how about bad publicity surrounding this issue causing the Cypress City government to abandon it's illegal initiation of force.* Unjust laws and laws applied beyond their intended purpose are violations in themselves. Here's a novel idea, how about Cypress City government doing the right thing and respect the rule of just law.

*Government having a monopoly on initiating force is the only one that can get away with such plundering. Doing so under the color of law as if that legitimizes initiation of force. The reason I say plundering is that to a property owner the value of their property could easily be worth much more to them than what the market value is. For example, what is the value of the back yard property where a person's grandparents are buried? Like a family heirloom, it could be priceless to the owner.