Replies

"...Perhaps the Cypress City Council and the Cypress city staff are not anti-Christian, just dense. They have talked themselves into a corner, and now find themselves on the receiving end of a large and growing wave of disgust. Legal bills will follow. So will defeat.
The first rule of holes for someone who wants to get out of one is: Stop digging.
Stop digging, Cypress and Costco..." - Hugh Hewitt

From http://www.nhbirdsnest.com/construction.htm:

The Cypress City Council's NEW motto:
"We're not anti-Christian. We're just DENSE!"

If you listen to Hugh Hewitt, or read his WND commentaries,
this PING list is for YOU!
Please post your comments, and BUMP!

(If you want OFF - or ON - my "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know)

...though the zoning in place did allow for church uses.

My husband has served on Planning Commissions in two states. Churches and schools normally are allowed as a "use by right" in all zoned areas because they are considered as beneficial for the populace. I dunno about California courts, but I think this church has a very strong case. The greedy City of Cypress would be thrown out on its ear if it were either in Texas or Wisconsin.

They would have to find some other reason for denying this, such the Church structure posing a danger to the Congregation or other residents (blocking vision at an intersection, for instance). Or construction of the Church would seriously deplete the water supply or cause flooding for the rest of the community. Of course that argument would block construction of the retail center too.

The Church should sue, or threaten to sue. It's amazing how City Attorneys will change their tune when they are faced with defending a lawsuit. They usually duck and run.

Thanks for the ping. The city of Cypress is no different from the other cities in California who have politicized and taxed our lives beyond the point of absurdity. In my town they wanted to bring in a huge shopping center. It was set up (in order to get local neighborhood support) promoting a wonderful and well-needed sports facility on much of the acreage purchased for the center. Mind you, the field that was purchased was the home of the little league fields...nothing fancy, just a lot of dirt, batting cages and baseball diamonds that had kept the kids entertained for many years. A new Costco, Home Depot, Linens and Things, CompUSA, Borders, etc, was sure to bring all kinds of traffic into the small area which had been quiet, but softening that with the sports facility allowed the plans to pass muster and it was built.

Now, however, the sports facility will be dismantled and low income housing will go in it's place. What is so hard to swallow about this is the fact that the original little league fields were wiped out in order to do this deal, and now the new ones will be gone as well. The local residents were lied to and manipulated and the children's facilities will go down to the almighty dollar. So what's new? If the battle is cultural/societal good vs monetary advantage, the green stuff always has the edge.

Would it interest anybody to know that the area in question was rezoned as a Redelopment Project Area nearly eight years before Cottonwood began bullying their way into the news. Cottonwood bought property that they knew was zoned for retail and that a comprehensive plan had been instituted by the city. They were able to acquire the land because other developers did not. Other developers knew that unless they had a big retail business or cluster of businesses the city would not allow them the use of the property.

As I said, Cottonwood did not own this property prior to the Redevelopment Agency taking development control of this property. The owner of the property at that time had every right to file suit because of the restrictions being put on his land use. He did not file suit and reportedly that owner actually encouraged the redevelopment zoning on the property. So now Cottonwood knowingly buys up property for a use that is not allowed. They have no right to build anything but retail on that property and they need a Conditional Use Permits to do so. Those were the rules when they bought the property and those rules remain.

Why should this out of town church have more rights than the citizens of Cypress who voted with a weighted majority (over 67%) to tax themselves to develop this property in the manner set forth by the Redevelopment Agency?

Why should this church have more rights than a developer who would not be allowed to build housing or industrial there?

The fact is they don't have more rights than others but they do garner more sympathy when they only tell their half of the story. IMO, they are trying to bully a community that clearly has a different plan for themselves and has been upfront about it.

Hugh Hewitt MEGA-PING!!