Costco vs. the church: Hugh Hewitt says city of Cypress has dug itself a big hole

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, June 5, 2002 | Hugh Hewitt

[AAABEST]

Your post is a long, well written bunch of bullshit.

Does a private entity own the land? Do the petty little s**tbag local tyrants want to take it from one private entity so that another private entity could use it?

If the answer to the above 2 questions are yes, you can save your typing. Take a step back and think about what the cosequences are when we start letting the local yokels use eminent domain to give property from one private entity to another.

Does this actually need to be explained to you?

[meyer]

And this from today's (6/5/02) print copy of the Wall Street Journal editorial page; a rebuttal from a J.D. Manley from Dallas:

"In regard to your May 30 editorial "The First Church of Costco," denouncing the eminent domain seizing of church property in Orange County, Calif., in order to sell it to a discount retailer:

While I agree that eminent domain is one of government's most significant powers, subject to dgregious abuses, I can't get worked up about the church's loss. If churches and other nonprofits paid their fiar share of taxes, I'd consider their property rights as sacrosanct as the grocer's, thebarber's or the jiggle-joint owenr's. As it stands, many cities have churches with monstrous 5000 member congregations that pay no property taxes, "consume" 10-plus acres of residential land (w/valuations of $50/sq.ft. that someone else must pay) and offer health clubs, schools, travel clubs, summer camps, and a fart of other services that limbo under the tax bar.

I'm happy for people to exercise their religious freedom. I get annoyed when the "Church of Lazarus" gets a walk on a $50,000 tax bill on their 100,000 sq.ft. facility while the neighbors have to absorb the taxes and Sunday traffic.

It seems that Mr. Manley thinks that eminent domain is OK in this case since the "victim" is a non-taxed entity known as a Church.

[meyer]

Whoops, pardon my typing errors. I was taking this off the print version.

[RGSpincich]

You are an idiot. Where did I say anything about Cypress having the right to take Cottonwood's property? I did say they shouldn't be involved in negotitions with Costco. I said Cottonwood should keep their property and develop it according to zoning laws or sell it or exchange it. Most of my comments were directed at the zoning issues. There is more but you're too dense to waste any more time with.